Preamble

The House met at a Quarter before Three of the Clock, Mr. SPEAKER in the Chair.

PRIVATE BUSINESS.

Private Bills [Lords] (Standing Orders not previously inquired into complied with),—Mr. SPEAKER laid upon the Table Report from one of the Examiners of Petitions for Private Bills, That, in the case of the following Bill, originating in the Lords, and referred on the First Reading thereof, the Standing Orders not previously inquired into, and which are applicable thereto, have been complied with, namely:—

Durham County Water Board Bill [Lords].

Ordered, That the Bill be read a Second time.

Private Bill Petitions [Lords] (Standing Orders not complied with),—Mr. SPEAKER laid upon the Table Report from one of the Examiners of Petitions for Private Bills, That, in the case of the Petitions for the following Bills, originating in the Lords, the Standing Orders have not been complied with, namely:—

Wear Navigation and Sunderland Dock (Finance) [Lords].
Workington Harbour and Dock [Lords].

Ordered, That the Reports be referred to the Select Committee on Standing Orders.

Great Yarmouth Water Bill [Lords],

North Metropolitan Electric Power Supply Bill [Lords],

Read the Third time, and passed, with Amendments.

Norwich Corporation Bill,

Read the Third time, and passed.

Oral Answers to Questions — NAVAL AND MILITARY PENSIONS AND GRANTS.

STATISTICS (AMERICA).

Lieut.-Colonel POWNALL: 2.
asked the Minister of Pensions if he can state the number of those receiving pensions for causes arising out of the War in the United States of America; and if he can state the number of persons engaged in the administration of such pensions in the United States as compared with this country?

The MINISTER of PENSIONS (Mr. Macpherson): I have caused inquiry to be made of the United States Government, and if the hon. and gallant Member will repeat his question in a fortnight's time, I hope to be in a position to give him the information he requires.

ROYAL ENGINEERS (BUGLER V. E. STIMPSON).

Major Sir BERTRAM FALLE: 4.
asked the Minister of Pensions if he can give the reason why the death of Bugler Victor Edward Stimpson, No. 37,591, Royal Engineers, cannot be accepted as having occurred while in the performance of military duties, seeing that this lad of 17 was swept off the Dover breakwater whilst on duty, and that the verdict of the Coroner's jury was accidentally drowned?

Mr. MACPHERSON: The evidence in this case is not conclusive one way or the other, and I propose personally to investigate it further.

PAYMENTS (DELAYS).

Dr. McDONALD: 6.
asked the Minister of Pensions whether he is aware of the increased delay in settling pensions, and of the irritation and restlessness arising therefrom; and is he aware that letters and telegrams from local committees to administrative area headquarters frequently remain unanswered?

Mr. MACPHERSON: Unfortunately, it is the case that in certain areas some delay has occurred, principally on account
of the fact that an increasing proportion of pension claims are now made by men who allege disablement by war service tong after their demobilisation, and this class of case necessarily requires fuller investigation than does that of men who are known to be disabled at the time of discharge. Every effort is, however, being made to deal with these cases promptly, and with increased experience the staffs of the more recently constituted regions will acquire facility in dealing with cases. I will be glad to inquire at once into any specific cases brought to my notice.

Mr. HOGGE: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that a great part of this delay is due to the fact that, after a pension is determined by the regional authority, payment cannot be made until the consent of the Pensions Issue Department has been obtained; and will he look into the question of delays at the Pensions Issue Department, in order that these payments may be expedited?

Mr. MACPHERSON: I am looking into all cases of delay. I know my hon. Friend has sent me a good many, and if he sends me any more, I shall look into them.

Mr. HOGGE: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the real crux of the difficulty is the dispute in existence in the Pensions Issue Department, and will he undertake to give that his personal attention, so that these claims may be met promptly?

Mr. MACPHERSON: I am not aware of any dispute in the Pensions Issue Department, but I will have the whole case considered myself personally.

BRITISH WEST INDIES REGIMENT.

Sir J. BUTCHER: 88.
asked the Under-Secretary of State for the Colonies whether he is aware that a totally disabled man of the British West Indies Regiment is entitled to a maximum pension of only 17s. 6d. per week as compared with 40s. per week to which a totally disabled man in this country is entitled; and that no provision is made for the wife and children of totally disabled men of the British West Indies Regiment; and whether, in view of the high cost of living in Jamaica, he will take steps to secure an adequate pension
for the disabled men of this regiment and for their wives and children?

The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the MINISTRY of SHIPPING (Colonel Leslie Wilson, for Lieut.-Colonel Amery): The maximum rate of pension payable from Imperial funds to a totally disabled man of the British West Indies Regiment is 14s. a week, or in special cases 17s. 6d. a week, but, with Treasury sanction, higher rates may be given if pre-War earnings exceeded those amounts Colonies which desired to grant pensions at higher rates from local funds have been authorised to do so. No representations have been received from any Colony that there are wives and children of disabled men for whom provision should be made. The Governor of Jamaica will be asked to report whether he considers that the rates of pension have become inadequate owing to the increase in the cost of living.

LOSS OF S.S. "LEINSTER" (COMPENSATION TO RELATIVES).

Major Sir KEITH FRASER: 7.
asked the Minister of Pensions whether steps have been taken to give pensions or otherwise compensate the relatives of those Government officials who lost their lives through enemy action against the Irish mail boat "Leinster," which was torpedoed in the Irish Channel in the winter of 1918; and whether he is aware that a civilian who was employed as an inspector of contracts by the War Office lost his life on that occasion, and that his relatives received no compensation whatever, because he was not actually in receipt of pay, although he applied for pay some months beforehand, and was informed that the rate of pay that he would receive was under consideration?

The FINANCIAL SECRETARY to the TREASURY (Mr. Baldwin): The widows and children of salaried civil officials of the Government who lost their lives in the "Leinster" while travelling on duty are entitled to the benefits of the Warrant of the 16th September, 1887, framed under Section 1 of the Superannuation Act of that year. There is no power to make an award under the Warrant in the case of a man doing voluntary service. I understand that the Treasury did not agree to assign a salary to the person in question.

Sir K. FRASER: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that this officer worked for one year without pay for the War Office, and would not accept payment until he realised that he was earning a salary, when he asked for pay, which was under consideration for six months, during which time he lost his life, his wife and children being in receipt of the small sum of £600 a year?

Mr. BALDWIN: It is the case, as the hon. Gentleman states, that the officer in question did not receive any pay. Therefore, he was ineligible, as I have stated. The case could only have been met by this House making a specific vote or by an application being made for Royal Bounty. The circumstances, into which I carefully looked, are that his means are not such as to make him eligible for Royal Bounty, and I do not consider there is any case that could have been brought before this House for special consideration.

Sir K. FRASER: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that he was worth £4,000 a year, and that he left his wife only £600 a year?

Oral Answers to Questions — IRELAND.

CONSTABULARY AND METROPOLITAN POLICE.

Colonel ASHLEY: 11.
asked the Chief Secretary for Ireland whether, in view of the fact that some 35 members of the Royal Irish Constabulary and Dublin Metropolitan Police have been killed and twice the number wounded since 1st January last, he will institute a medal or decoration to be granted to the officers and men of these two forces who have shown special gallantry in the execution of their duty under circumstances dangerous to life and limb; and, if so, whether, to avoid delay, power will be given to the official heads of these two forces to bestow this medal or decoration on their own initiative?

The ATTORNEY-GENERAL for IRELAND (Mr. Denis Henry): I would refer my hon. and gallant Friend to the reply given by my right hon. Friend the Chief Secretary to a precisely similar question on Thursday last.

Colonel ASHLEY: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that his right hon.
Friend said the matter was under very favourable consideration, and can I not now have an answer?

Mr. HENRY: The Chief Secretary has returned to Ireland in the interval, and is still dealing with the matter.

Colonel ASHLEY: I give notice that I shall put the question down for this day week, and I hope I shall have an answer.

Earl WINTERTON: Cannot the police under the existing regulations be granted a decoration pending the decision?

Mr. HENRY: I think so.

Colonel NEWMAN: 21.
asked the Chief Secretary for Ireland whether he is aware that ex-members of the Royal Irish Constabulary who left the force on small pensions and who are anxious to get employment in civil life are utterly unable to do so in the whole of Ireland outside Ulster owing to Republican domination and hostility; and will he press on the Government the necessity of making immediate increased provision for these men who are being made to suffer because of their previous calling?

Mr. HENRY: Recent inquiries were made in every county in Ireland regarding the difficulty of Constabulary pensioners in obtaining employment, and the results of those inquiries showed that there were comparatively few cases. I am aware the number has since increased, and the Chief Secretary is doing all in his power to press the question of increased provision for these men.

Colonel NEWMAN: Will the right hon. Gentleman assist these ex-Constabulary men, who leave Ireland for employment in England, and their families, to come across?

Mr. HENRY: If any case comes before the Government we shall be glad to consider it.

Earl WINTERTON: 45.
asked the Prime Minister whether his attention has been called to the great gallantry of the ten men of the Royal Irish Constabulary who defended the police barracks at Kilmallock for five hours against an overwhelming number of desperadoes armed with rifles and
bombs; if he is aware that the police only evacuated the barracks when two of their number had been killed and several others wounded and when the building was in flames; and that, notwithstanding the casualties they had sustained, the survivors made a bayonet charge upon the attackers who were eventually scattered; and whether, under these circumstances, the Government will make a public acknowledgment of their services to the State and recommend the survivors for decoration by His Majesty?

The PRIME MINISTER (Mr. Lloyd George): The gallant conduct of all members of the Royal Irish Constabulary, in defending their barracks at Kilmallock, County Limerick, against a prolonged and determined attack by a large number of raiders, has been fully considered by the Constabulary Reward Board. Each of the members of the force concerned has been awarded the Constabulary medal, which is only granted in cases of pre-eminent valour and bravery. They have each been promoted to higher rank in the force, and have also been awarded favourable records and money grants from the Reward Board.

Mr. LAMBERT: Are the Government taking steps to ensure that the lives of these men are not unnecessarily risked? They are undergoing great trouble in Ireland in defending these scattered places.

The PRIME MINISTER: I quite agree with my right hon. Friend that we ought not merely to recognise their gallantry when they put up a defence of this kind, but that every step ought to be taken to protect them and make them more secure. I had a very prolonged discussion with the representative of the Irish Police three or four days ago as to the best method of securing the protection for them, and he assured me that such steps were being taken. At present, I do not think it right to indicate what are those steps.

Sir E. CARSON: Has the right hon. Gentleman ever looked at the miserable scale of pensions awarded to the widows and children of those police constables who are killed in the discharge of their duty?

The PRIME MINISTER: Perhaps my right hon. Friend will put down a question on the subject. I know that matter has been discussed.

Sir E. CARSON: I have a question down for Monday.

PETTY SESSIONS.

Colonel Sir A. SPROT: 12.
asked the Chief Secretary for Ireland whether the Government are aware that a notice was recently posted in Brosna, county Kerry, to the effect that any person found entering the Court to-day would be shot dead, and signed I. R. A., and that 63 persons had been summoned to attend petty sessions but none of them appeared in Court; and whether the Government are taking adequate steps to see that the law of the land is enforced and to compel obedience to summonses to attend petty sessions?

Mr. HENRY: The answer to the first part of the question is in the affirmative. A large number of persons were summoned charged with larceny of timber. The defendants did not attend, and owing to the absence of a representative of the landlord to prove the case the resident magistrate was, therefore, obliged to adjourn the cases to the next petty sessions at Castleisland.

ILLEGAL COURTS.

Sir A. SPROT: 13.
asked the Chief Secretary for Ireland whether his attention has been directed to the evidence given on 27th May before the coroner's jury which inquired into the death of James Dalton at Limerick on 15th May last; whether Joseph Dalton, a brother of deceased, gave evidence that he was present at a Dail Eireann inquiry into allegations against James Dalton of having relations with the police, and produced a document which was called Dail Eireann official verdict in the case of James Dalton; whether the coroner accepted this document and handed it to the jury for their consideration; and whether it is proposed that the verdicts of illegal courts should be accepted by officials of the Government sitting in a judicial capacity and treated as material evidence for the consideration of the jury?

Mr. HENRY: The answer to the first part of the question is in the affirmative. It appears that a brother of the deceased
man produced a document to the effect mentioned in the question, which was read. The coroner is not an official of the Government, and the document in question was at once seized by the district inspector.

Sir JOHN BUTCHER: Is there no control by the Government over the proceedings of coroners' courts?

Mr. HENRY: The coroner sits in a judicial capacity and is entitled to decide what documents he will receive or refuse to receive in evidence.

Captain WEDGWOOD BENN: Does the Government assume any responsibility in connection with the verdicts brought in by coroners' courts?

Mr. HENRY: That depends entirely on the verdict.

PUBLIC LIBRARIES BILL.

Mr. DONALD: 14.
asked the Chief Secretary for Ireland whether he will state if under the Public Libraries (Ireland) Bill the Local Government Board will have power to approve the amounts paid for free lectures and delegation expenses to library association meetings, seeing that most of the libraries in Ireland are provided with suitable lecture halls; and whether this was the intention of the Carnegie Trust when these libraries were being built, namely, to run free popular lectures during the winter evenings?

Mr. HENRY: The answer is in the negative.

INCOME TAX COLLECTORS.

Lieut.-Colonel GUINNESS: 15.
asked the Chief Secretary for Ireland whether service in the Royal Irish Constabulary disqualifies applicants for appointments as collectors of Income Tax; and, if so, whether the rule will be altered so that they may become eligible?

Mr. BALDWIN: The Board of Inland Revenue have given instructions that in filling vacancies in collectorships of taxes preference is to be given to discharged and particularly disabled sailors and soldiers who have the necessary qualifications for the post. Subject to the priority accorded to ex-service men in accordance with these instructions, ex-members of the Royal Irish Constabulary are eligible for appointment on the same terms as others.

Lieut.-Colonel GUINNESS: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that officers have been given to understand that they are definitely precluded, and in view of these men having served under conditions not far removed from war service will he let it be known to the Royal Irish Constabulary that they are eligible?

Mr. BALDWIN: I am only aware of the answer I have just given.

SCHOOL TEACHERS (PENSION PREMIUMS).

Mr. LYNN: 16.
asked the Chief Secretary for Ireland whether national school teachers in Ireland have to pay pension premiums, whereas English and Scottish teachers have not; and whether he proposes to put the Irish teachers in the same position as British teachers?

Mr. HENRY: Irish national school teachers are required to pay pension premiums which are deducted from their salaries in quarterly instalments. I understand that owing to recent legislation England and Scottish national school teachers are no longer obliged to pay pension premiums. With regard to the last part of the question, the Chief Secretary is considering the matter.

HISTORICAL TEXT BOOKS.

Sir J. BUTCHER: 17.
asked the Chief Secretary for Ireland for how long the Irish History written by the late Reverend Denis Murphy was in use in the Irish Roman Catholic national schools, and on what grounds its further use was eventually forbidden; whether the Commissioners of National Education are satisfied that this book and the other historical text books, the use of which has recently been forbidden, were in all respects proper and suitable works on which to educate the youth of Ireland at the expense of the British Exchequer; and, if so, why their use has been forbidden?

Mr. HENRY: The "Short History of Ireland" by the Reverend Denis Murphy appeared on the Lists of Books sanctioned by the Commissioners of National Education for use in national schools between the years 1900 and 1911. The Commissioners are not in a position to say to what extent this particular work was actually used in the schools inasmuch as it was one of a number of text-books in history on the sanctioned list, and the
selection of books from the lists rested with the school managers in each case. It is believed, however, that very few schools used this book. No order forbidding the use of this work was made, but owing to being out of print it was removed from the lists of sanctioned books published after 1911. With regard to the last part of the question I would refer my hon. and learned Friend to the replies given to previous questions on the subject.

Sir J. BUTCHER: Why has no answer been given to the question as to why the use of this book was first permitted and afterwards forbidden?

Mr. HENRY: I have referred my hon. and learned Friend to the previous answers given on this subject, and he will find there a statement by the late Chief Secretary dealing with that question.

Captain W. BENN: Was it not prohibited because it gives the Irish view of Irish history instead of the English view?

Mr. HENRY: I really do not know, because I have never read the book.

EDUCATION BILL.

Mr. DONALD: 18.
asked the Chief Secretary for Ireland whether he is now in a position to state when the Government propose to take the Second Reading of the Irish Education Bill; and whether any decision has yet been come to to alleviate the financial difficulties of the teachers in Ireland?

Mr. HENRY: I am not in a position to add anything to the reply given to the question asked by my hon. Friend on this subject on the 13th May.

Mr. DONALD: Can my right hon. and learned Friend say if he has yet come to a decision with regard to the financial position of the teachers in Ireland?

Mr. HENRY: That matter is occupying the attention of the Chief Secretary.

MALICIOUS INJURY (COMPENSATION).

Colonel NEWMAN: 22.
asked the Chief Secretary for Ireland whether he is aware that at a recent meeting of the Cork County Council the solicitor to the Council stated that claims for compensation for malicious injury for the months of April and May alone, amounting to £206,157,
had been presented to the Council; whether this sum would mean a charge on the county at large of 3s. in the £; and, in view of the fact that the majority of the large ratepayers are opponents of the Irish Republican party, is it proposed to make them suffer for the illegal actions of their opponents?

Mr. HENRY: The answer to the first part of the question is in the affirmative. The question of exemption of any ratepayer from the levy is for the Courts to, determine under the provisions of the Act of 1919

Colonel ASHLEY: Will the right hon. Gentleman say what are the considerations which the Court should take into consideration when a man applies to be exempted? Is it whether he is a loyalist or not?

Mr. HENRY: The County Court Judge, and the Judge of Assize have the widest possible discretion.

MAIL ROBBERIES.

Mr. LEONARD LYLE: 23.
asked the Chief Secretary for Ireland how many robberies of the mails in Ireland there have been since the beginning of the year and how many last month; whether it is possible to see that the postmen are in most cases accompanied by an armed guard; and whether it is better to reduce the number of deliveries and collections and ensure their safety rather than endeavour to maintain normal conditions without due protection both of those who carry the letters and those who write them?

The ASSISTANT POSTMASTER-GENERAL (Mr. Pike Pease): My right hon. Friend has asked me to answer this question. As stated in reply to previous questions, I have called for a return, but cannot at present give the numbers asked for. The robberies, however, though serious enough, are not so numerous and extensive as the hon. Member seems to suggest. I do not think it is possible to accompany every postman by an armed guard, even if the number of deliveries and collections were reduced.

PRISONERS' RELEASE.

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: 25.
asked the Prime Minister whether he is aware that all the Irishmen interned in Mountjoy Prison and nearly all the Irish-
men interned in Wormwood Scrubs Prison have now secured their liberty; whether any reconsideration has been given to the case of the hon. and gallant Member for West Wicklow, now undergoing a sentence imposed by a court-martial of three years' penal servitude in Portland Prison; whether he is aware that the hon. and gallant Member was sentenced, not by reason of any action taken by him, but because of his conviction on a charge of hypothetical incitement to murder; and whether, in view of this hon. Gentleman's gallant services in the War, he will recommend His Majesty to pardon and release him?

Mr. HENRY: The answer to the first part of the question is in the affirmative. It is not proposed to release the Member for West Wicklow, whose offence was of a much more serious nature than that described in the question.

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: What was the difference between the offence of the hon. Member for West Wicklow and that committed by the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for Duncairn (Sir E. Carson) a short time ago?

Sir E. CARSON: With reference to that observation, which is a very impertinent one, may I say that I have never sided with the enemies of this country.

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: Where did you get the rifles from?

Mr. SPEAKER: I must warn the hon. and gallant Gentleman that, if he does not control himself, I shall have to ask him to withdraw. [An HON. MEMBER: "The sooner the better."]

COUNTY COUNCIL ELECTIONS (TYRONE AND FERMANAGH).

Mr. RAFFAN: 40.
asked the Prime Minister whether his attention has been called to the results of the County Council Elections in Tyrone and Fermanagh; and, if so, whether, in view of the defeat of the supporters of the right hon. Member for Duncairn, the Government will reconsider its decision as to including these counties in Northern Ireland under the Government of Ireland Bill?

The PRIME MINISTER: The answer to the first part of the question is in the affirmative, and to the last part in the negative.

Mr. RAFFAN: May I ask the right hon. Gentleman whether he will not give consideration to the altered circumstances?

The PRIME MINISTER: I do not thing there are any altered circumstances. At any rate, all the circumstances can be passed in review on the discussion of the Bill—from which, I understand, the hon. Member has withdrawn.

Mr. RAFFAN: Is it not a fact that I have attended the Debates regularly and that the right hon. Gentleman has been conspicuous by his absence?

The PRIME MINISTER: If I had had any question to raise on the Debates I certainly would have been present. I am only inviting the hon. Member, if he has anything to say on the subject, to do it on the proper occasion.

Mr. RAFFAN: Has not the House already decided this point upon the information then before it? Will the Government now consider that the circumstances have altered since the decision of the House was reached?

Mr. BILLING: May we take it that in all cases when the Prime Minister is not present he dissociates himself from the actions of the Government?

The PRIME MINISTER: That is too subtle a point.

GOVERNMENT OF IRELAND BILL.

The following Question stood on the Order Paper in the name of Sir E. Carson:

64. To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he will publish and distribute to Members the full details of the figures upon which the estimate of revenue and expenditure has been computed before the financial provisions of the Government of Ireland Bill are reached.

Sir E. CARSON: It is unnecessary to ask this question, as the information has been promised.

NATIONAL SCHOOL TEACHERS.

Mr. DONALD: 82.
asked the President of the Board of Education if national school teachers who may transfer their services from Ireland to Great Britain, or to any of His Majesty's Colonies, will receive credit for their years of service in Ireland for pension, taking into account their payment of pension premiums in Ireland?

The PRESIDENT of the BOARD of EDUCATION (Mr. Herbert Fisher): Service as a teacher in an educational institution in Ireland receiving grants from the Government is "qualifying service" for the purposes of the School Teachers (Superannuation) Act, 1918, and will therefore be credited to a teacher who performs 10 years of "recognised" service in England and satisfies the other conditions of the Act. Qualifying service is not pensionable in itself, but is accepted in completion of the period of 30 years' service required under the Act as a condition of the award of pension. The benefits receivable by teachers in respect of their Irish service are a matter within the administration of the Commissioners of National Education, Ireland, and not of the Board of Education.

ULSTER VOLUNFEER PATROL.

Mr. DONALD (by Private Notice): asked the Chief Secretary for Ireland whether the Government will give any particulars regarding the Ulster Volunteer patrol who, acting in place of the police near Enniskillen, encountered a large party of Sinn Feiners, who fired upon them; and whether any were killed or wounded?

No reply was given.

Mr. DONALD: (later): On a point of Order, Mr. Speaker. In view of the fact that I last night forwarded the question which I put a little while ago, addressed to the Chief Secretary for Ireland, and marked "Private Notice Question," can I have an answer to it? The matter is a very important one.

Mr. SPEAKER: I believe the Chief Secretary is in Ireland. [HON. MEMBERS: The Attorney-General!]

Mr. DONALD: May I have an answer from the Prime Minister? According to Press reports, there has been a pitched battle, in which several Sinn Feiners have been wounded. I am, I may say, delighted to hear that.

The PRIME MINISTER: I very much regret that my right hon. and learned Friend is not here. He was here earlier in the proceedings. I am afraid notice of the question of the hon. Member must have miscarried, for my right hon. and learned Friend is the last man in the
world to pay no attention to a matter of this sort. Therefore, I am very much afraid that this very interesting piece of information may not have reached him. Later, I shall be very glad to convey what information there is to the hon. Member.

Sir E. CARSON: As this matter is a very important one, and may lead to very serious consequences, may I ask my right hon. Friend that if any information be received during the day, we may, at the adjournment, have an announcement as to what really occurred.

The PRIME MINISTER: I will take steps immediately to communicate with the Irish Office, and will see that the House is informed on the subject.

Oral Answers to Questions — EX-SERVICE MEN.

TRAINEES' ALLOWANCES.

Dr. M'DONALD: 5.
asked the Minister of Pensions whether he is aware of the interruption in the training of pensioners even after successful probation and, in many cases, the prolonged delay in paying these men their authorised allowances?

The MINISTER of LABOUR (Dr. Macnamara): I have been asked to reply to this question. I am not clear what my hon. Friend means by the interruption in the training of pensioners, even after successful probation, and I am not aware that there is now any undue delay in the payment to trainees of the allowance to which they are entitled. If, however, he will speak to me or send me details of any particular instances he may have in mind, I shall be glad to investigate them.

EARL HAIG'S APPEAL.

Colonel NEWMAN: 44.
asked the Prime Minister whether he has received a copy of a personal letter from Field-Marshal Earl Haig, appealing for £5,000,000, to assist 33,000 disabled officers, 10,000 officers' widows, and 25,000 orphans and children of officers; whether he is aware that the sum mentioned could be immediately saved by a more drastic cutting down of redundant Government offices and officials; and will he promise on behalf of the Government that if the public subscribe £1,000,000 within six months, the Government will make up the balance required?

Mr. BALDWIN: As regards the first and third sections of the question, I would refer my hon. and gallant Friend to the reply given by my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer on the 19th May to my hon. Friend the Member for Maldon, to which I have nothing to add. It is not the case that £5,000,000 could be immediately saved by a more drastic cutting down of redundant Government offices and officials. Constant attention is being given to the reduction of staffs, but savings under this head can only accrue gradually.

Colonel NEWMAN: May I have an answer to the last part of the question?

Mr. BALDWIN: I could not give an undertaking of that kind.

Lieut.-Colonel CROFT: Could not the Disposal Board be abolished, as a means of saving some of this money?

Mr. BILLING: The Government have done a very similar thing in offering to double any money raised for the children of our late enemies. If they could do that, surely they can do it in this case?

Mr. BALDWIN: That offer was temporary and special, and is now at an end.

EDUCATION.

Major M. WOOD: 78.
asked the President of the Board of Education whether officers and men of the Navy, Army, and Air Force who are not demobilised before the 30th June next are to be deprived of the benefits of the Government scheme to assist ex-service men to complete their interrupted education; and, if so, why they are to be thus penalised for the extended service they have given to their country?

Mr. HOGGE: 81.
asked the President of the Board of Education whether the Government has definitely decided to discontinue any grants to demobilised officers after 30th June; and, if so, what rights will remain to officers who have fought during the War and are not yet demobilised or in a position to avail themselves of the Government provision?

Mr. FISHER: There is nothing in the Regulations governing the award of these grants to prevent intending applicants from applying for an award before they are demobilised, but if an
applicant, submitting an application after 30th June, 1920, can show that circumstances of his military or naval service prevented him from lodging his application before that date, the Board will be prepared to consider it.

TEACHERS.

Sir K. FRASER: 79.
asked the President of the Board of Education if he will consider the question of ex-service teachers being recognised as certificated teachers from the date they would have been recognised as such but for their period of training being interrupted by war service?

Mr. FISHER: I would refer the hon. and gallant Member to the answer which I gave on the 17th of February to the hon. Member for Cardiff, East (Sir W. Seager).

Sir K. FRASER: May I ask whether the right hon. Gentleman intends to reply to the petition which I presented to him on behalf of the ex-service teachers of this country?

Mr. FISHER: I am receiving a deputation on this subject to-morrow, but I am not in a position to make any further statement now.

Sir K. FRASER: Why cannot I have a reply to the petition which I presented about three weeks ago?

MIDDLE EAST.

Mr. MYERS: 27.
asked the Prime Minister whether any co-ordinating authority exists to minimise departmental conflict over the newly-acquired spheres of influence in the Middle East?

The PRIME MINISTER: Matters of common interest are discussed by the Inter-Departmental Committee on Eastern Affairs, presided over by the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs.

POLAND AND CZECHO-SLOVAKIA.

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: 28.
asked the Prime Minister whether His Majesty's Government has any information regarding a dispute between the republics of Poland and Czecho-Slovakia; whether either party to the dispute has
requested the League of Nations to arbitrate or intervene; whether His Majesty's Government has instructed the British representative on the Council of the League to take any action; and whether it is proposed to suggest the calling of a special meeting of the Council to consider the situation?

Captain W. BENN: 38.
asked the Prime Minister whether the Government of Czecho-Slovakia has asked that the dispute between that Government and the Polish Government with regard to Teschen shall be referred to the League of Nations; and, if so, whether the League of Nations will deal with the matter?

The PRIME MINISTER: The difficulties which have arisen between Poland and Czecho-Slovakia are at this moment being attentively considered by the Ambassadors' Conference at Paris, who are in communication with the representatives of the two republics. The Czecho-Slovak Government have also drawn the attention of the League of Nations to the dispute. In either case, His Majesty's Government will use every endeavour to secure a peaceful settlement of this dispute.

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: May I ask the Prime Minister whether he can inform me if the League of Nations is going to settle this question, or whether it is to be settled by the Ambassadors' Conference or the Supreme Council?

The PRIME MINISTER: The League of Nations, I believe, has been summoned to meet in the course of the next few days, but what action they may take it is not for me to say.

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: Is it the intention of the Government to officially represent this case to the League of Nations and ask them to decide it, or is executive action, if any, going to be taken by the Supreme Council without further reference to the League?

The PRIME MINISTER: We took the most effective method of securing a peace able settlement between these two friendly Republics, and I do not think it would be wise for me to commit the Government

Colonel WEDGWOOD: Will the right hon. Gentleman tell us what troops there are on the border?

The PRIME MINISTER: I could not possibly do that without notice. The circumstances are very unfortunate, but I am very hopeful of a peaceful settlement of the dispute.

PEACE CELEBRATION, NATIONAL HOLIDAY.

Mr. BOTTOMLEY: 29.
asked the Prime Minister whether it is proposed to declare 19th July, the date chosen last year for the official celebration of the signing of Peace, a national holiday?

The PRIME MINISTER: I do not think that it would be desirable to adopt the suggestion of my hon. Friend.

ANGLO-JAPANESE ALLIANCE.

Captain W. BENN: 30.
asked the Prime Minister whether the Government has received any communication from the Government of China with regard to the prospective renewal of the Anglo-Japanese Alliance; and, if so, what is the nature of the communication?

The PRIME MINISTER: The answer is in the affirmative, but His Majesty's Government are not in a position at present to publish its terms.

Captain BENN: Have the Chinese asked that the dispute regarding Shantung be referred to the League of Nations?

Mr. L. MALONE: 57.
asked the Prime Minister whether any agreement or treaty between Great Britain and Japan is under consideration; whether any protest has been received from the Chinese Government in connection therewith, whether the Anglo-Japanese agreements of 1905 and 1911 infringed the integrity of Chinese territory without the consent of the Chinese Government; whether, since the signing of the Austrian Peace Treaty, China is not now a member of the League of Nations; and whether before any further treaties or agreements are made they will be referred to the League of Nations?

The PRIME MINISTER: With regard to the first part of the question, I have to refer the hon. and gallant Member to the reply given on the 3rd instant to the hon. Member for Lincoln. Similarly with regard to the second part of the question, I have to refer the hon. and gallant Member to the reply already given to-day to the question put by the hon. and gallant Member for Leith. The answer to the third part of the question is in the negative, and to the fourth part that the Chinese Government have signed, but not yet ratified, the Treaty of Peace with Austria. The Covenant of the League of Nations is Part I of this Treaty. With regard to the fifth part of the question, His Majesty's Government have every intention of adhering strictly to Article XVIII. of the Covenant of the League of Nations.

Oral Answers to Questions — RUSSIA.

CRIMEA AND SOUTH RUSSIA.

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: asked the Under-Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs what progress has been made in the negotiations for an armistice or for peace between the Russian Soviet Government and the followers of General Count Wrangel; whether British officers or representatives are assisting these negotiations in any way; and whether His Majesty's Government is still using its good offices to bring about peace by negotiation in the Crimea and South Russia?

Commander B. EYRES-MONSELL (Treasurer of the Household): There is little to add to the reply which I have made to the hon. Member for East Leyton on 10th May. The proposal of His Majesty's Government was that British representatives should assist in negotiations with the object of bringing about a peaceful settlement in South Russia. I regret to say that I am not hopeful of such a settlement being arrived at in the near future, though every endeavour has been and is being made by His Majesty's Government to bring about a cessation of hostilities.

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: May I ask the Prime Minister how he can reconcile the fact that when General Wrangel's army was being defeated we appealed to the Bolshevists for mercy
towards them, and then we supplied them with munitions, and how is it that they are now advancing and restarting the whole war in South Russia again?

The PRIME MINISTER: I am sorry to say that my attention has not been called to this particular question on the Paper. I do not know how it has arisen, but we are not in the least responsible for General Wrangel's offensive.

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: Is the right hon. Gentleman not aware that our warships have been supporting this General from the sea, that we have 300 military officers serving with him, and that we have been supplying munitions to him? How does the right hon. Gentleman reconcile that with his declarations?

The PRIME MINISTER: We are not supplying munitions. We did our best to mediate between the Soviet Government and General Wrangel's forces, in order to secure good terms for the refugees. But we made it absolutely clear to General Wrangel that we should not be responsible for himself and his army if he undertook offensive operations. He has done so, and the responsibility is entirely his.

Captain BENN: Is it not a fact that, since the Prime Minister made the statement about saving the refugees, we have in fact assisted General Wrangel by sea and by land, and with munitions, according to the statement of the War Secretary himself?

The PRIME MINISTER: We have not gone beyond that.

Captain BENN: Yes, we have.

The PRIME MINISTER: If the hon. and gallant Member knows more about it than I do, why should he ask? The facts are exactly as I have stated, and it is important that that should be known, because, whatever may be the merits or demerits of our policy, it is very important that whatever action we take should be straightforward and above board, and in this case it has been. [AN HON. MEMBER: "It has not been!"]

Mr. CLYNES: Does the answer of the Prime Minister mean in connection with this offensive that British arms and British war materials are not being employed with the knowledge of the British Government?

The PRIME MINISTER: I have no doubt at all that of the war material which we supplied, with the sanction of this House, to General Denikin's force up to 30th March, General Wrangel has still got a certain quantity. We have supplied no material, and the mission has been withdrawn since we heard of the offensive being resumed.

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: I shall ask leave to move the Adjournment of the House on this matter at the end of questions.

At the end of Questions:—

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: I ask leave to move the Adjournment of the House, in order to call attention to a definite matter of urgent public importance, namely, the advance of General Wrangel in the Crimea, and the responsibility of the Government in connection therewith.

Mr. SPEAKER: After what was said at Question time, I can hardly accept this as a "definite" matter of urgent public importance. The Prime Minister distinctly said the Government were not responsible in any way for the advance of General Wrangel. The hon. and gallant Member has assumed something which the Government say is non-existent, and has founded upon that a demand to raise a discussion. I am afraid I cannot accede to his request.

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: With great deference may I remind you, Sir, or refresh your memory with the answers given in this House during the last fortnight by the Secretary of State for War to the effect that 300 British officers were organising General Wrangel's army, and by the First Lord of the Admiralty to the effect that British ships were supporting him in the interests of humanity? May I submit that, in view of the fact that the Government requested the Bolshevik Government to hold their hands off from General Wrangel's army in the interests of humanity, that our responsibility is very real at the present time, and until the matter is cleared up we will stand discredited throughout the world?

Mr. SPEAKER: I must accept the statement which has been made by the Prime Minister that the Government have no responsibility for any advance, and that, on the contrary, they have done
their best to bring about a peaceful settlement.

Mr. CLYNES: May I point out that in answer to a question which I put to the Prime Minister, he stated that British materials and airmen were being used in connection with this advance, and does not that denote some responsibility on the part of the Government?

Mr. SPEAKER: I understand that was sent before the 31st of March.

The PRIME MINISTER: With the authority of the House, may I say?

Colonel WEDGWOOD: May I submit that this is a matter of definite and urgent public importance?

Mr. SPEAKER: I have just ruled that it is not.

Colonel WEDGWOOD: Have you not ruled Sir, that the British Government were not responsible. But that does not alter the fact, I submit, that it is a definite matter of public importance. The question of the responsibility or otherwise of the Government is, I think, a matter for argument, and that is definite certainty, and urgent certainty. On these grounds I think that according to the rules of this House the Motion for Adjournment should be accepted. It would be a new interpretation of the Order of the House if a matter could be prevented from being debated, because you have decided that it is a matter which the Government is not responsible for.

Mr. SPEAKER: The hon. and gallant Member has misunderstood me. I began by saying that the matter was not definite. I said it was indefinite because the Prime Minister had himself announced to-day that the Government were not responsible for any advance on the part of General Wrangel. On the contrary their policy was the other way, and they had endeavoured to bring about a peaceful situation. That being so, how can it be said that it is a definite matter?

Mr. HOGG: rose—

Mr. SPEAKER: I wish the hon. Gentleman had himself to decide these matters. It is unfortunately my lot to decide them, and I have decided.

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: I beg to give notice—[Interruption].

UNITED STATES POLICY.

Commander Viscount CURZON: 31.
asked the Prime Minister whether America has given her consent to any form of recognition of the Soviet Government by the negotiations now in progress in this country; and, if not, whether steps are being taken to ascertain the views of the American Government?

The PRIME MINISTER: The American Government have been consulted as to whether they would desire to be represented at the meetings with M. Krassin, but a reply has not so far been received.

EXTERNAL DEBTS.

Viscount CURZON: 32.
asked the Prime Minister whether the matter of Russia's external debts has formed the matter of any conversations between the Government and the Soviet representative?

The PRIME MINISTER: The answer is in the affirmative.

Mr. MALONE: Will not the claims of the Soviet Government for damages done by intervention greatly exceed the external pre-War debt?

SOVIET TRADE DELEGATION.

Viscount CURZON: 33.
asked the Prime Minister whether the Government know exactly what funds are at the disposal of the Soviet delegation in this country; whether he has any information as to the source of such funds and as to how they are spent; and could the surplus Government accommodation at the Hotel Petrograd be devoted to providing for this accommodation?

The PRIME MINISTER: The answer to the first and second parts of the question is in the negative, but His Majesty's Government have no reason to suppose that such funds as are at the disposal of the Russian Trade Delegation are being improperly spent.

Major MACKENZIE WOOD: 36.
asked the Prime Minister whether, in the terms of the decision of the Supreme Council on 24th February, the Government have arrived at the conviction that Bolshevist horrors have come to an end and that the Government of Moscow is ready to conform its methods and diplomatic conduct to those of all civilised Governments; and whether, in consequence of that conviction, he has received M. Krassin as Minister of the Soviet Govern-
ment and acting in its name and authority?

The PRIME MINISTER: The quotation in the hon. Member's question referred to a general resumption of diplomatic relations. The decision of the Supreme Council is confined to trade.

Dr. MURRAY: 37.
asked the Prime Minister whether in the negotiations at present taking place for the opening of trade relations with Russia there has been any discussion regarding the hostilities between Poland and Russia and the position of General Wrangel's forces in the Crimea?

The PRIME MINISTER: The answer is in the affirmative.

BRITISH WORKMEN.

Mr. MALONE: 56.
asked the Prime Minister whether any difficulties will be placed in the way of workers who desire to leave this country and settle in Russia under a Soviet form of Government?

The PRIME MINISTER: There are no indications at present of the least desire on the part of workmen to leave this country and settle in Soviet Russia.

Sir H. BRITTAIN: Can the right hon. Gentleman see his way to encourage lovers of this form of Government to emigrate there?

Mr. PALMER: Will the right hon. Gentleman be good enough to encourage certain Members of this House to go there.

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: May I ask if any Members of this House have asked for permission to go and fight with the White Armies in Russia?

Mr. SPEAKER: That does not arise out of the question.

OIL.

Mr. RAFFAN: 34.
asked the Prime Minister when he can make a statement as to the Government's policy with regard to oil, and in particular with regard to the exploitation of the oil resources of Mosul?

The PRIME MINISTER: As regards the first part of the question, I would refer the hon. Member to the reply given
on the 6th of May to the hon. Member for Walsall. As regards the second part, the present position as to the mineral resources of Mesopotamia is stated in the reply given to the hon. Member for Stafford on the 3rd of June.

Colonel WEDGWOOD: Has the right hon. Gentleman's attention been called to the statement made by His Majesty's Ambassador in the United States that we had nationalised the oil supply of Great Britain?

Mr CHARLES EDWARDS: 49.
asked the Prime Minister whether he is aware that the price of oil has reached as high a figure as £19 per ton; if so, will the decision of the Admiralty to transform ships of His Majesty's Navy into oil-burning vessels be reconsidered; can he state the number and tonnage of private shipping which is being transformed in the same way; and whether this will have the effect of seriously raising the cost of all freights carried and thus increase the price of all goods brought into this country?

The PRIME MINISTER: No, Sir. I am not aware that the current price is as stated in the first part of the question, and the second part does not therefore arise. With regard to the third part, I have no official knowledge as to the conversion of private shipping.

Mr. EDWARDS: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the Secretary of the United States Government has advised the heads of the Navy and other ship Departments to transform ships so as to provide for coal burning?

HUNGARY.

Colonel WEDGWOOD: 39.
asked the Prime Minister whether he is aware that the Hungarian workers of Pecs, which is now in the occupation of the Serbian troops, have petitioned for the retention of the Serbian occupation so long as the present régime continues in Hungary; and if he will use the influence of Great Britain to prolong at present the Serbian occupation of the district of Karanga?

The PRIME MINISTER: I understand that certain petitions have been received from workmen in the Pecs region asking
for the continuance of the Yugo-Slav occupation, but I have no information as to whether this represents the general feeling of the population of that province. In answer to the second part of the question, I would remind my hon. and gallant Friend that there could be no good reason for prolonging the occupation of Hungarian territory when once the Treaty of Peace with Hungary has come into force.

Colonel WEDGWOOD: Will the Government make any inquiry of the workpeople of Pecs and find out their opinion as to the retrocession of this district to the present Hungarian régime?

Colonel WEDGWOOD: 73.
asked the Under-Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether his attention has been drawn to the Report of the British Labour delegation on the terror in Hungary; and will he call the attention of the British High Commissioner in Hungary to this Report and obtain his comments upon the Report?

Commander EYRES-MONSELL: The answer to the first part of the question is in the affirmative, but the Secretary of State has not yet had the time to study the Report or to decide what action could properly be taken in connection with it.

Colonel WEDGWOOD: 74.
asked the Under-Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether, in view of the allegations respecting the state of the Hungarian military prisons and particularly the internment camp at Hajmasker, His Majesty's Government will approach the Hungarian Government with a view to obtaining the supervision of some British or French civilian over these prisons?

Commander EYRES-MONSELL: The British High Commissioner at Budapest visited this camp early in May last, and reported on it in fairly favourable terms. He drew the attention of the Prime Minister of Hungary to various points in which he considered the conditions of the camp could be improved, and his observations met with a favourable reception. We have no later information regarding this camp. It is no part of the duty of His Majesty's Government to supervise the prisons of a foreign country, nor could they press upon a foreign government the appointment of British officials for such purpose.

Colonel WEDGWOOD: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that when the British High Commissioner went to Hajmaskar Camp the people whom it was not wished he should see were sent into barracks 24 and 3 in order to be out of the way of the inspection, and further is he aware that we have special responsibilities for these people in Hungary, because Sir Thomas Cunningham and Mr. Boehm arranged the terms of surrender of the Commune, and those terms have not been carried out?

OLD AGE PENSIONS.

Mr. RAFFAN: 41.
asked the Prime Minister whether, with a view to assisting applicants for old age pensions, many of whom are not conversant with the regulations applying to their particular circumstances, a circular will be prepared setting out the rates of pensions and simple particulars of the Old Age Pensions Acts; and, if so, whether copies will be available at all Post Offices for those who require them?

Mr. BALDWIN: A claimant can always obtain full information respecting his title to an old age pension from the local Pension Officer, and it would not appear that the probable benefits which would arise from adopting the hon. Member's suggestion would be sufficient to justify the expense involved.

Mr. RAFFAN: Would it not simplify matters very much if the claimant to an old age pension could have in a handy form particulars which would enable him to make a claim without the necessity of a visit to the office?

Mr. BALDWIN: There are so many details in connection with old age pensions that I doubt if a handy form could be prepared. In the second place, I would rather get my information verbally than to try to discover it from any Government publication.

COLONIAL OFFICE ADMINISTRATION.

Sir H. BRITTAIN: 42.
asked the Prime Minister whether it is the intention of the Government to transfer to the Privy Council matters connected with the rela-
tions between Great Britain and the self-governing Dominions, leaving to the Colonial Office the administration of the Colonies properly so-called; and whether the Government has under consideration a special Department to deal with the territories in the Middle East over which this country exercises a protectorate or administrative mandate?

Major-General Sir N. MOORE: 58.
asked the Prime Minister whether, in view of the frequent references in the Press to the intention of the Government to transfer from the Colonial Office the administration of dominion affairs, he is prepared to make a statement on this important proposal?

The PRIME MINISTER: I would refer my hon. Friends to the answer given on Thursday last to a question by my hon. and gallant Friend, the Member for Stafford.

Earl WINTERTON: Has the right hon. Gentleman received a letter, signed by a large number of Members of this House representing all parties, by Noble Lords in another place and by experts outside, and is he prepared to receive a deputation?

The PRIME MINISTER: I shall certainly be very glad to meet any Members of the House who have any representations to make.

Earl WINTERTON: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that I sent myself to Sir Maurice Hankey a letter signed by Members of all parties in this House, by Members of the House of Lords and by experts outside? Has he not received it?

The PRIME MINISTER: I am quite aware of the position on this subject. I can assure my Noble Friend that it was considered very carefully by the Government.

AIR DEFENCES.

Major-General SEELY: 47.
asked the Prime Minister if he can now state what steps have been taken to reconstitute the Committee of Imperial Defence, with a view to a proper co-ordination of the sea, land, and air defences of the Empire?

The PRIME MINISTER: The Committee of Imperial Defence is so constituted to enable it to deal with the
co-ordination of the sea, land and air defences of the Empire, that is to say, experts from the three services will attend meetings of the Committee as required. It is hoped that a meeting will be held shortly.

Major-General SEELY: May I ask when the right hon. Gentleman expects to be in a position to do so. We were told it would be completed shortly a month ago, and it is rather a long time in a matter of such vital importance?

The PRIME MINISTER: I agree, but there are circumstances which make it very difficult to organise.

Mr. BILLING: Is the right hon. Gentleman prepared to appoint a special representative of the Air Service or will it be represented by the War Office?

The PRIME MINISTER: I have no doubt that will be considered.

CENTRAL CONTROL BOARD (LIQUOR TRAFFIC).

Mr. GWYNNE: 50.
asked the Prime Minister whether, in view of the continued delay in introducing legislation dealing with the licensing question and abolishing the Liquor Control Board, he will instruct that body forthwith to extend their present order prohibiting the supply of alcoholic refreshment after 9 o'clock on Sundays in working men's clubs to 10 o'clock and thus enable men to take advantage of the summer time out of doors without foregoing their refreshment afterwards.

Captain AINSWORTH: 46.
asked the Prime Minister if he will state when the temporary restrictions imposed on clubs by reason of the war will be removed, and when the promise contained in a letter, dated November, 1918, addressed to Mr. A. L. Cox, and signed on his behalf by J. T. Davies, recognising the desirability of withdrawing at the earliest opportunity any restrictions imposed on the social habits of the people will be carried out; and whether he is aware that the continuance of the restrictions, especially on working men's clubs, are the cause of great discontent, and that the members of these clubs feel a distrust of the Government because the assurance given as to the withdrawal of the restrictions has not been carried out.

The PRIME MINISTER: As already stated by my right hon. Friend, the Leader of the House, and by myself in reply to questions on this subject, it is not possible to deal with this question until the Government measure dealing with the matter has been introduced.

Mr. GWYNNE: Are we to understand that these restrictions are to remain in spite of the assurances of the right hon. Gentleman and of the Leader of the House that control was going to be abolished?

Captain BOWYER: May I ask whether the right hon. Gentleman realises that all over the country this question involves a promise given by him as long ago as November, 1918?

Mr. BILLING: Will the right hon. Gentleman consider in the meantime not allowing the Summer Time Act to affect the Drinking Hours Act.

Mr. BOTTOMLEY: May I ask if the following statement by the Minister of Health represents the views of His Majesty's Government—

Mr. SPEAKER: The hon. Member should give notice of that question.

Colonel ASHLEY: Can the right hon. Gentleman not bring his personal influence to bear on the Liquor Control Board and point out the difficulty working men have after working on allotments in getting anything to drink.

Mr. PALMER: Is it not the fact that the Liquor Control Board was instituted solely and entirely to expedite the output of munitions during the War, and nothing else?

The PRIME MINISTER: I agree that the whole position with reference to these restrictions has got to be reviewed, but the Government naturally prefer that that should only be done by legislation on the whole subject, but restriction is not the only word to be said on the question of consumption of liquor.

Sir J. BUTCHER: Is it not possible to fix more convenient hours for the opening of clubs and public-houses before the Licensing Bill has been passed into law?

Mr. BILLING: Is the right hon. Gentleman still of opinion we have more to fear from drink than from Germany?

The PRIME MINISTER: I do not think anyone who knows about the facts will doubt that it is a national peril.

Mr. LYLE: 52.
asked the Prime Minister if his attention has been called to the fact that His Majesty's Stationery Office is issuing appeals to the medical profession and others to subscribe for a book on alcohol which is being published by the Central Control Board (Liquor Traffic); whether this touting for business on the part of the Government department is necessary or sanctioned; what is the cost of printing and publishing the work entitled, Alcohol, Its Action on the Human Organism; what revenue has been received at present on account of the volume; and whether, in the interests of public economy, he will check this type of expenditure by Government departments.

Mr. BALDWIN: In reply to the first and second parts of the question, I would refer my hon. Friend to my answer to the hon. and gallant Member for Buckingham on the 20th ultimo. The cost of printing and publishing the work in question, including the cost of advertisement, amounts to £530. The receipts from sales to date are £980, showing a profit of £450. The last part of the question does not therefore arise.

Oral Answers to Questions — INDIA.

LORD HUNTER'S COMMISSION.

Lieut.-Colonel Sir F. HALL: 51.
asked the Prime Minister if Pandit Jagat Narayan, who in 1917 accused Sir Michael O'Dwyer of having imprisoned thousands of people without trial, and who subsequently undertook to make a public withdrawal of this false charge, has yet done so; if this person is identical with the Mr. Naryan who has signed the Minority Report of Lord Hunter's Commission on the Punjab disturbances; and, if so, will he state who was responsible for placing on the Commission a person who had already, by his own confession, been guilty of false and seditious statements of a glaring character.

The PRIME MINISTER: I should be much obliged if my hon. and gallant Friend would address this question to the Secretary of State for India.

Sir F. HALL: Perhaps the Secretary of State for India could answer the question now?

The SECRETARY of STATE for INDIA (Mr. Montagu): I do not like to do so without preparing a carefully written answer, and if the hon. Gentleman will be good enough to put it down for Monday, I will answer him.

Oral Answers to Questions — HOUSING.

UNOCCUPIED DWELLINGS.

Mr. T. THOMSON: 53.
asked the Prime Minister whether, in view of the number of dwelling-houses which are at present unoccupied from various causes, the Government will empower local authorities to require their immediate occupation in order to somewhat relieve the existing shortage?

The MINISTER of HEALTH (Dr. Addison): I hope to lay proposals dealing with this point before Parliament at an early date.

Mr. THOMSON: Can the right hon. Gentleman say what "early date" means in Parliamentary language, as I put down this question two months ago, and have got no further?

Sir F. HALL: Seven years.

WORKMEN'S COMPENSATION ACT.

Sir ROBERT THOMAS: 54.
asked the Prime Minister if he can state why, when the weekly sum payable under the Workmen's Compensation Act was raised by statute to the extent of three-quarters of the amount of the weekly payment, no provision was made for a corresponding addition to the maximum amount of £300 payable to the dependants of a workman whose death results from the injury; and whether it is the intention of the Government to introduce legislation to remedy this omission?

The SECRETARY of STATE for the HOME DEPARTMENT (Mr. Shortt): The Workmen's Compensation (War Addition) Acts, which provide for the payment of an additional weekly sum in cases of total incapacity during the War and a period of six months thereafter, were passed as emergency measures on the basis of agreements between employers and workers' representatives, and it was in accordance
with these agreements that they were limited to cases of incapacity. I hope to receive before the end of this month the Report of the Departmental Committee which has been inquiring into the whole subject of workmen's compensation, and as soon as the Report is received, the Government will consider the question of introducing legislation.

Oral Answers to Questions — PEACE TREATIES.

GERMAN OBLIGATIONS.

Mr. PALMER: 59.
asked the Prime Minister whether, as the results of the Hythe conversations, the Allies agreed that, if Germany delayed any longer in carrying out her obligations, further districts of Germany would have to he occupied?

The PRIME MINISTER: I would refer the hon. Member to the answer which I gave on Monday last in reply to a similar question. The decision as to a possible further occupation of German districts in certain contingencies was taken at San Remo, and not at Hythe.

MUNITIONS OF WAR (CENTRAL EUROPE).

Mr. MALONE: 72.
asked the Under-Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether the munitions of war which have been transhipped out of Bulgaria, Austria, Germany and Hungary have been shipped by approval of the Allies in accordance with the terms of the peace treaties; what amounts have been so moved; and to what destinations?

Commander EYRES-MONSELL: The Allied and Associated Powers have, by the various Peace Treaties, imposed on the countries named the obligation to surrender all war material to them, and they do not approve of the disposal of such material in any other manner. They have addressed special warnings on this point to the German, Hungarian and Austrian Governments. I have no information as to the amount of war material that may nevertheless have been exported.

Mr. MALONE: Are we to assume that the British military missions in Austria and Hungary sanctioned the supply of munitions to the Poles?

Commander EYRES-MONSELL: No, the hon. Gentleman is not to understand anything of the sort.

SWANSEA CORPORATION BILL.

Mr. MYERS: 62.
asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he is aware that a Clause relating to savings and housing banks has been struck out from the Swansea Corporation Bill during the present Session by the Local Legislation Committee, and having regard to the fact that other municipalities in the country are contemplating seeking similar powers, if he will undertake to introduce at an early date a Bill to confer upon local authorities full banking powers, savings and otherwise?

Mr. BALDWIN: The answer to the first part of the question is in the affirmative. My right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer cannot undertake to introduce legislation on the subject.

FLOATING DEBT.

Captain W. BENN: 63.
asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer what was the total floating debt outstanding on 29th May, 1920, and what were the total Exchequer receipts from Treasury bonds to that date?

Mr. BALDWIN: The information asked for by the hon. and gallant Member was published in the weekly return of Tuesday, 1st June. For his convenience I repeat it. The floating debt on the 29th May was £1,283,639,000, and the Exchequer receipts up to that date from Treasury Bonds was £5,025,000. The same information for the week following was published last Tuesday evening.

Captain W. BENN: Is it a fact that the floating debt is increasing at a greater rate than the subscriptions for Treasury Bonds, which meet it?

Mr. BALDWIN: It is not possible to make a general statement across the floor of the House now. It goes up and down, and probably at the moment the hon. Member's contention is correct.

Oral Answers to Questions — GOVERNMENT OFFICES (STAFFS AND AOCOMMODATION).

VICTORIA AND ALBERT MUSEUM.

Sir J. BUTCHER: 77.
asked the President of the Board of Education whether he is aware that, notwithstanding the hopes that he expressed on 1st March last
as to setting free in the month of April the galleries of the Victoria and Albert Museum appropriated by certain of the staff of the Education Department under the Defence of the Realm Regulations, these galleries are still occupied by the Education Department and are closed to the public; and whether, in view of the great importance to the trade of this country and to the public that these galleries should be restored to their proper uses, and of the injury to our trade and the great inconvenience caused by the closing of these galleries, he will take immediate steps to remove his staff from the museum and to reopen the galleries to the public at the earliest possible moment?

Mr. FISHER: The answer to the first part of the question is in the affirmative. I am most anxious that the Victoria and Albert Museum should be restored to its proper uses at the earliest possible date. The delay in the evacuation of the museum by the staff of the Board of Education is due partly to the fact that certain work has to be carried out, in order to render the accommodation allocated to them at Whitehall fit for occupation, and partly to the fact that cerain re-arrangements of other staffs have to be effected before that accommodation can be placed at the disposal of the Board of Education. My right hon. Friend the First Commissioner of Works informs me that he hopes that the removal of the Board's staff to Whitehall will be completed by the end of July.

Mr. KILEY: 89.
asked the First Commissioner of Works whether he will consider the advisability of not giving up possession of any more buildings such as the Crystal Palace, Alexandra Palace, British Museum, and other exhibition buildings, until he is in a position to release the costly business premises and hotels which are so urgently needed?

The FIRST COMMISSIONER of WORKS (Sir Alfred Mond): The British Museum has already been given up, and arrangements have also been made in the public interest for the early surrender of the Victoria and Albert Museum, the Imperial Institute, and the Tate Gallery, but the Crystal Palace and Alexandra Palace are being retained for Government purposes. As regards requisitioned business premises and hotels, the number
still retained has been greatly reduced, and every effort is being made to arrange priority of surrender in such cases.

Captain TERRELL: How many hotels in London are at present occupied by Government Departments?

Sir A. MOND: I think there is only one.

Captain TERRELL: What is the name of that?

Sir A. MOND: Horrox's.

Mr. KILEY: Does not the right hon. Gentleman consider it would be to the advantage of the country, and in the interests of economy, to surrender business places before giving up such places as Alexandra Palace, the British Museum, and other places of that character?

Sir A. MOND: Alexandra Palace is not a museum. The opinion of the House generally was that museums should be surrendered before the other places.

Mr. KILEY: In the interests of economy?

WATERLOO HOUSE AND GREENER HOUSE.

Captain ELLIOT: 91.
asked the First Commissioner of Works whether the Wheat Commission, in addition to other accommodation, are now occupying premises in the Haymarket and Charles Street, called Waterloo House and Greener House, which command a commercial rent of about £20,000 per annum; what is the total floor area and the number of staff in residence; and whether he will explain the reason for their occupation of these premises, in view of the need for Government economy and the present demand for offices for ordinary commercial purposes?

Mr. MACOUISTEN: 90.
asked the First Commissioner of Works whether the Wheat Commission, in addition to other accommodation, are now occupying premises in the Haymarket and Charles Street, called Waterloo House and Greener House, which command a commercial rent of about £20,000 per annum; what is the total floor area and the number of staff in residence; and whether their occupation of these premise-can be justified, in view of the pressing need for Government economy and the
present demand for offices for ordinary commercial purposes?

Sir A. MOND: The Wheat Commission occupy a floor area of 27,500 feet in Waterloo House and Greener House for a staff of 395. I am fully alive to the necessity for vacating these premises as early as possible, and the question of the provision of alternative accommodation for the Wheat Commission is under serious consideration.

Captain TERRELL: What rent is being paid for this accommodation?

Mr. SPEAKER: The hon. and gallant Member must give notice of these questions of detail.

Oral Answers to Questions — LEAGUE OF NATIONS.

SECRETARY GENERAL (SALARY).

Colonel GRETTON: 76.
asked the Under-Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs if the salary of the Secretary of the League of Nations is paid by the British Treasury; and, if so, will he state what is the amount of the salary, and is it subject to income tax and super-tax?

Commander EYRES-MONSELL: I understand that the Secretary General of the League of Nations is granted a salary of £4,000 a year, together with frais de representation of £6,000 a year. These emoluments are met from the funds of the League of Nations, to which His Majesty's Government subscribe in accordance with Article 6 of the Covenant of the League. Under Article 7 of the Covenant, officials of the League are granted diplomatic privileges and immunities, and in virtue of this provision they are not liable to British Income Tax.

Colonel GRETTON: May I ask if the whole of the amount, £10,000, for the salary and emoluments is subscribed by the British Government?

Commander EYRES-MONSELL: Will the hon. and gallant Gentleman give notice of that question? It is really a Treasury question.

Colonel GRETTON: Can my hon. Friend say on what Vote the salary of the Secretary of the League of Nations is carried?

Sir H. BRITTAIN: Can he inform the House what subscriptions are received from other countries?

Commander EYRES-MONSELL: No.

Mr. SPEAKER: The hon. Member should give notice of that.

INTERNATIONAL LABOUR ORGANISATION CONFERENCE.

Mr. LUNN: 85.
asked the Home Secretary whether he will issue as a White Paper a full Report of the proceedings of the General Conference of the International Labour Organisation of the League of Nations, with a view to the assistance of Members in the consideration of legislation based on conventions arrived at by the Conference?

Mr. SHORTT: I regret that I can add nothing to my reply of the 19th May to the question asked by the hon. Member for the Bedwellty Division. There will be no delay in this country when the reports are received from America.

Oral Answers to Questions — FINANCE BILL.

INCOME TAX.

Mr. TYSON WILSON: 65.
asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he is aware that in Bury and other places persons liable to pay Income Tax have been supplied with forms applicable to the law in operation in 1917; and whether, in view of the fact that people are not conversant with all the provisions relating to Income Tax, he will give instructions that where obsolete forms have been issued proper forms shall be substituted, and that in future care shall be taken not to issue forms which will mislead the taxpayers?

Mr. BALDWIN: I assume that the hon. Member is referring to the Income Tax forms which have been issued for the current year. These forms—millions in number—are necessarily prepared, and printed some months in advance, to enable their issue to the public at the commencement of the Income Tax year. It follows that the forms can indicate only the provisions of the existing law, namely, the law as in force for 1919–20, and can have no regard to changes which may be made in the Finance Bill of the year. When,
however, the Bill becomes law, steps will be taken by the issue of supplementary forms and explanatory memoranda to inform taxpayers of any further reliefs, etc., which it may be open to them to claim, and the assessments will, of course, be made upon the basis of the amended law. If by inadvertence an obsolete form has been issued in any case in which the hon. Member may have in mind, I will look into the matter if he will furnish me with particulars.

EXCESS PROFITS DUTY.

Major KELLY: 66.
asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will state the amount of Excess Profits Duty not yet paid for the year 1918?

Mr. BALDWIN: I would refer my hon. and gallant Friend to the answer given to the hon. Member for Pontefract (Mr. Forrest) on the 20th of May.

Major KELLY: Will every facility be given to firms who have not paid Excess Profits Duty for 1918 to allow them to retain it as long as it helps them to develop their business?

Colonel WEDGWOOD: May I ask whether in that case they will be charged interest on the overdue amount?

Mr. BALDWIN: I do not think that case is likely to arise.

Captain TERRELL: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that a large number of firms who owe Excess Profits Duty are unable to find the money to pay it with?

Mr. BALDWIN: I think that is extremely probable.

IMPERIAL PREFERENCE.

Mr. LYLE-SAMUEL: 70.
asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he can state how the loss of revenue due to the introduction of Imperial preference last year compared with the estimate in the Budget speech, 1919; what was the amount of the loss; and what the estimated amount of loss will be in this full year?

Mr. BALDWIN: An exact statement is not possible. If it be assumed that as much Empire goods, and especially as much Empire tea and tobacco, would
have been imported if there had been no preference, the loss of revenue would be £3,650,000 for the past year and £4,400,000 for the current year, but the assumption cannot be justified, and an accurate estimate is therefore not possible.

Mr. LYLE-SAMUEL: May I ask whether the right hon. Gentleman considers, in view of our present national financial position, that this is an appropriate time for us, by indulging in a fiscal folly, to deprive our revenue of £8,000,000.

Mr. SPEAKER: That speech should be made on the Committee stage of the Finance Bill.

CARRIAGE LICENCE DUTIES.

Mr. LYLE SAMUEL: 71.
asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he will state what the total revenue from carriage licence duties was for the year 1919–20; what proportion of the amount was derived from duties on horse-drawn vehicles; and what proportion from mechanically-propelled vehicles?

Mr. BALDWIN: The final figures are not yet available, but from such figures as are in my possession it is estimated that the total receipts from Carriage Duties for the year 1919–20 were approximately £1,690,000. For a similar reason it is not practicable to state the proportions of this total due respectively to horse-drawn and mechanically-propelled vehicles. The total receipts from horse-drawn vehicles however are not expected to exceed those for 1918–19, namely, £242,000. Duties on horse-drawn vehicles are not levied in Ireland.

POST OFFICE (CONTROLLER AND ACCOUNTANT-GENERAL).

Mr. ROBERT RICHARDSON: 68.
asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he is aware that the post of Controller and Accountant-General of the General Post Office has been vacant since the 1st August last; and whether, in view of the size and important functions of the Accountant-General's Department, he will cause an early appointment to be made?

Mr. PEASE: I hope to make an appointment very shortly.

GAME AND HEATHER BURNING (SCOTLAND). COMMITTEE.

Major M. WOOD: 69.
asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he is aware that the Game and Heather Burning (Scotland) Committee, appointed to consider what permanent measures are required in Scotland to protect cultivated land, pastoral land, and plantations from damage by deer, winged game, rabbits and hares, and vermin, and also those required to regulate heather burning, has taken evidence and is preparing its Report; that the Committee requested the special permission of the Treasury to print the evidence laid before the Committee in extenso as an appendix to their Report, in view of the wide scope and importance of the subjects dealt with, and that the Treasury refused sanction thereto; that the preparation of new summaries of the evidence will entail a great amount of work and long delay in the presentation of the Committee's Report; and whether he will now instruct the necessary authority to be given for printing a limited number of copies, in order that Parliament may be put in possession of the whole facts on these matters of urgent national importance, which can only be obtained from a Report of the evidence in extenso?

Mr. BALDWIN: The answer to the first two parts of the question is in the affirmative. It is not now usual to print evidence verbatim except in special circumstances, and I would ask the House to support the efforts of the Treasury to enforce economies. If the Committee be able to satisfy my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer that the cost involved in their proposals is not disproportionate to the object to be attained, he will be ready to consider the matter further.

Oral Answers to Questions — EDUCATION.

PHYSICAL TRAINING.

Colonel YATE: 80.
asked the President of the Board of Education whether his attention has been called to the account of the physical training display given before His Royal Highness the Prince of Wales by the children of the State schools in Melbourne; what steps are being taken to enable a similar display to be given in England; and whether he will
take the necessary steps either to give teachers who qualify themselves to take up the appointment of inspectors or organisers of physical training the benefit of the Superannuation Act or else to provide them with increased salaries to carry them over the time till arrangements can be made for superannuation?

Mr. FISHER: I have seen a description of the display at Melbourne in the Press. I am not aware of any proposal to hold a similar display in this country. As I have already informed the hon. and gallant Member, I do not see my way to introduce legislation with a view to extending the School Teachers (Superannuation) Act to inspectors and organisers of physical training. The remuneration of these officers is a matter for the local education authorities who employ them.

Colonel YATE: Will the right hon. Gentleman address the local education authorities on the subject and see what, in their opinion, can be done to better the position of these men?

Mr. FISHER: I think the local education authorities are well aware of the position.

DESTITUTE CHILDREN, WHITECHAPEL.

Mr. KILEY: 84.
asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he is aware that on the 25th May the local police brought to the Whitechapel workhouse four children named Beleuimes, aged three, six, eight, and 11 years, born in Glasgow, with a request that they should be taken care of, as they were destitute on account of the arrest of the parents in Glasgow, stating that the father was in Brixton and the mother in Holloway prisons pending deportation; will he state what is the charge against the parents; and, in the event of the Poor Law authorities of Glasgow refusing to pay the cost of maintenance of these children, what action he proposes to take to relieve the ratepayers of Whitechapel from the cost of maintaining destitute children belonging to other districts?

Mr. SHORTT: The facts are substantially as stated in the first part of the question. The parents were convicted at Glasgow, and were recommended for expulsion. They have expressed a desire to be sent to Soviet Russia, and, pending
the completion of arrangements for the journey, for which an opportunity has only recently occurred, they are detained in custody, and the children are being taken care of in the manner indicated. As soon as arrangements are completed, the children will be sent away with their parents, and, in the event contemplated in the last part of the question, I shall be ready to consider what action I can properly take in the matter.

Mr. KILEY: Will the right hon. Gentleman take some steps to prevent in future young children of three, four and five being separated from their parents, and will he also state on what ground these people are being deported?

Mr. SHORTT: I forget at the moment what the conviction was, but there was a conviction for some offence, and a recommendation for deportation.

WOMEN MAGISTRATES.

Major JOHN EDWARDS: 86.
asked the Home Secretary how many women magistrates have been appointed for England and Wales respectively?

Mr. SHORTT: The answer is 45 for England and one for Wales. It is hoped that both numbers will be increased within a very short period.

Major EDWARDS: Can the right hon. Gentleman say why, as far as Wales is concerned, while so many ladies are eligible, so few are chosen?

BRITISH GOVERNMENT STAFFS, PARIS.

Mr. LYLE: 92.
asked the First Commissioner of Works what buildings in Paris are still rented on behalf of any British Ministries; what are the rents paid and which are the Ministries concerned; and when arrangements are being made to evacuate the French capital so far as British Departments are concerned?

Sir A. MOND: The following buildings in Paris are still occupied by Government staffs:—
22, Rue d'Aguesseau and 22, Rue de l'Elysée. Rent £125 per month. For staff dealing with the carrying out of the Treaty with Germany.
Part of Hotel Campbell. Rent £550 per month. Occupied by the Delegation dealing with Treaty of Peace with Turkey.
Two flats in Rue de Bassano. Rent £50 per month. Occupied by representatives of the Admiralty, Air Ministry, Ministry of Shipping and Imperial War Graves Commission.
The question of evacuation is one for the Departments concerned, but I understand that the Hotel Campbell will be surrendered immediately.

NATIONAL HOSPITAL FOR THE PARALYTIC AND EPILEPTIC.

Sir C. KINLOCH-COOKE: (by Private Notice) asked the Minister of Health whether he is aware that the National Hospital for the Paralytic and Epileptic, the principal school for the study of nervous diseases, has had to close its doors owing to want of funds, and, in view of the urgent public need of keeping the hospital open, and the serious loss to medical science involved, can he now make his promised statement with regard to Government assistance to hospitals?

Dr. ADDISON: I am not yet in a position to make any general statement, but, in the meantime, I understand that the King Edward Hospital Fund are prepared to consider the application from this hospital for an immediate emergency grant which reached them this morning, no previous intimation having been given to the Fund that there was any intention of closing the hospital.

Sir C. KINLOCH-COOKE: Is my right hon. Friend aware that I myself put to him a question on similar lines, and I informed him that the hospital would have to be closed if a grant were not forthcoming, and that was at least three weeks ago?

MEMBERS OF PARLIAMENT (CORRESPONDENCE).

Mr. BOTTOMLEY: (by Private Notice) asked the Secretary of State for Home Affairs whether he is aware that a letter addressed to the hon. Member for South Hackney, bearing the postmark of the
3rd June last, was detained and opened by the Postal Authorities, and ultimately delivered, with the written intimation in red ink on the envelope that it had been detained and opened and forwarded to addressee by order of the Home Secretary; whether he will state under what legal authority this was done, and with what object, and whether he will give an assurance that letters addressed to Members of Parliament shall not, in future, be tampered with?

Mr. SHORTT: If any letter addressed personally to the hon. Member has been opened by the Post Office, it must have been through some inadvertence, which I regret. If the hon. Member will be so good as to let me have the cover of the letter which he describes, I will have inquiry made. For my authority to order the detention and opening of letters, I would refer the hon. Member to Section 56 of the Post Office Act, 1908.

Mr. BOTTOMLEY: Arising out of that answer, I desire to ask the Home Secretary what control he has over the Postmaster-General at all in regard to the opening of letters, and whether this endorsement on the envelope is a fabrication and untrue; and, if so, can he explain the extraordinary fact that the letter of a Member of Parliament, which might contain important information, was opened?

Mr. SHORTT: I have no authority over the Postmaster-General, but letters can only be detained and opened by the authority of a Secretary of State. As far as this letter is concerned, I have said that if the cover is sent to me, inquiry shall be made. With regard to the letters of Members of Parliament, they are, of course, treated in exactly the same way as those of other people.

Mr. PEMBERTON BILLING: May I ask the Prime Minister if he will consider the fact that in many cases the correspondence of Members of Parliament contains charges against Government Departments, and requests, in the public interest, to raise matters in this House; and that if these letters are to be opened, does he not think that this very necessary information will not be forthcoming, because the writers of the letters will feel that they are being penalised by that information leaking
out? Under these circumstances will he see that the correspondence of Members of this House—

Mr. SPEAKER: That is a matter of which the hon. Member must give notice.

MOTIONS FOR ADJOURNMENT.

Mr. GWYNNE: May I ask your ruling, Mr. Speaker, on a matter which was referred to at Question Time yesterday. The Adjournment of the House was moved by my hon. and gallant Friend (Lieut.-Colonel Croft). In the course of the discussion you said—I am quoting from the OFFICIAL REPORT—
That matter, I understand, is now being investigated by a Select Committee of the House. It could not, therefore, be discussed by the House while it is before the Committee."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 9th June, 1920; Col. 398, Vol. 130.]
What I desire to ask your ruling upon, if you will be good enough to give it to me—for this raises a very important matter—is whether the ruling of yesterday refers to matters which have been sent to the Select Committee on National Expenditure, which is a Committee of recent origin, with very wide powers and a roving commission, to deal at any time with any subject the Committee may think proper, and which is brought at any time before the House; and whether, if your ruling go forth, that in future this House may be precluded from discussing any matter concerning any Department while it is before that Committee, the Select Committee on National Expenditure have a right to consider items which come under expenditure. I suggest to you, Sir, that your ruling is not really to be interpreted from yesterday's discussion that these very important matters may not be discussed, for that would be against the interests and privileges of this House! May I respectfully ask you to make it clear that your ruling does not apply to the roving commission which the Select Committee on National Expenditure has at the present time—and rightly—into the proceedings of this House?

Mr. SPEAKER: Each question stands upon its own merits. I laid down the general principle upon which the House has always acted.

Mr. GWYNNE: The question appears to be a very general one, and that is what I ask—that you should say, as you do now,
that each question is to be judged on its merits, and that your decision should not be taken to refer to any matter which has been referred to the Select Committee on National Expenditure?

Mr. PALMER: In point of fact, is it not the case that matters specifically referred to this Committee are precluded from discussion, and that ordinary matters, which are not referred specifically to any Committee, are not precluded?

Mr. SPEAKER: I do not think that it will be advisable to lay down any general rule in advance. We have to take each question as it arises. It was clear from what the right hon. Baronet (Sir F. Banbury) said that the matter referred to has been for some time before the Committee, which is particularly inquiring into it. It was, therefore, obviously not a question which the House would desire to discuss, or could possibly discuss, while it was the subject of investigation and discussion by the Committee.

Mr. GWYNNE: Then I take it that your ruling referred only to yesterday's proceedings, and not generally?

Mr. SPEAKER: What I have said I have said!

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE.

Sir D. MACLEAN: Can the Prime Minister inform us what business it is proposed to take next week, and, in particular, what are the Orders the Government hope to take to-night?

The PRIME MINISTER: To-night we go as far as we can with the Orders on the Paper in the order they are on the Paper. How far we go will depend upon the indulgence of the House.
Monday and Tuesday: Government of Ireland Bill, except that part of Tuesday will be reserved for the Committee stage of the Finance Resolution of the Agriculture Bill.
Wednesday: This will be announced later.
Thursday: Supply—League of Nations Vote.

Colonel ASHLEY: May I ask whether the Government of Ireland Bill will be the first Order on Tuesday, or will it come after the Committee stage of the Agriculture Bill?

The PRIME MINISTER: It has been decided, I understand, that it shall be taken second.

Sir F. BANBURY: In view of the statement that the Licensing Bill is going to be passed through all its stages this Session, may I ask if it is intended that we shall sit continuously till Christmas?

Mr. BOTTOMLEY: Can the right hon. Gentleman say when the Committee stage of the Finance Bill will be taken?

Lord HUGH CECIL: Can the right hon. Gentleman tell us whether the Suspensory (New) Clause of the First Lord of the Admiralty will be on the Paper before Monday?

The PRIME MINISTER: My right hon. Friend hopes it will be on the Paper by Monday.

Sir W. JOYNSON-HICKS: Do we understand that Wednesday is likely to be reserved for the Amritsar discussion?

The PRIME MINISTER: It is possible it will be kept open for that purpose.

Mr. ASQUITH: May I take it that Wednesday will possibly be kept open for the general discussion?

The PRIME MINISTER: It is being kept open, in the hope that the Amritsar matter may be taken then.

Captain W. BENN: Can the right hon. Gentleman give us an assurance that the Overseas Trade (Credits and Insurance) Bill will not be taken to-night—the sixth Order?

The PRIME MINISTER: If there be any general desire not to take it. [HON. MEMBERS: "No, no!"]

Motion made, and Question put, "That other Government Business have precedence this day of the Business of Supply."—[Mr. Bonar Law.]

The House divided: Ayes, 247; Noes, 34.

Division No. 132.]
AYES.
[4.4 p.m.


Adair, Rear-Admiral Thomas B. S.
Banbury, Rt. Hon. Sir Frederick G.
Benn, Com. Ian H. (Greenwich)


Allen, Lieut.-Colonel William James
Barnes, Rt. Hon. G. (Glas., Gorbals)
Betterton, Henry B.


Archer-Shee, Lieut.-Colonel Martin
Barnett, Major R. W.
Bigland, Alfred


Ashley, Colonel Wilfrid W.
Barrie, Charles Coupar
Birchall, Major J. Dearman


Baird, John Lawrence
Beckett, Hon. Gervase
Blair, Major Reginald


Baldwin, Stanley
Bell, Lieut.-Col. W. C. H (Devizes)
Boles, Lieut.-Colonel D. F.


Boscawen, Rt. Hon. Sir A. Griffith-
Haslam, Lewis
Pratt, John William


Bottomley, Horatio W.
Henderson, Major V. L. (Tradeston)
Preston, W. R.


Bowerman, Rt. Hon. Charles W.
Hennessy, Major J. R. G.
Pretyman, Rt. Hon. Ernest G.


Bowyer, Captain G. E. W.
Henry, Denis S. (Londonderry, S.)
Pulley, Charles Thornton


Boyd-Carpenter, Major A.
Herbert, Hon. A. (Somerset, Yeovil)
Purchase, H. G.


Brassey, Major H. L. C.
Hilder, Lieut.-Colonel Frank
Raeburn, Sir William H.


Breese, Major Charles E.
Hinds, John
Ramsden, G. T.


Brittain, Sir Harry
Hoare, Lieut.-Colonel Sir S. J. G.
Ratcliffe, Henry Butler


Britton, G. B.
Holbrook, Sir Arthur Richard
Raw, Lieutenant-Colonel N.


Buckley, Lieut.-Colonel A.
Hope, H. (Stirling & Cl'ckm'nn'n. W.)
Rawlinson, John Frederick Peel


Bull, Rt. Hon. Sir William James
Hope, James F. (Sheffield, Central)
Reid, D. D.


Burn, Col. C. R. (Devon, Torquay)
Hope, Lt.-Col. Sir J. A. (Midlothian)
Remnant, Colonel Sir James F.


Burn, T. H. (Belfast, St. Anne's)
Hopkins, John W. W
Roberts, Rt. Hon. G. H. (Norwich)


Butcher, Sir John George
Hopkinson, A. (Lancaster, Mossley)
Roberts, Sir S. (Sheffield, Ecclesall)


Campbell, J. D. G.
Horne, Sir R. S. (Glasgow, Hillhead)
Robinson, S. (Brecon and Radnor)


Campion, Lieut.-Colonel W. R.
Howard, Major S. G.
Rose, Frank H.


Carew, Charles Robert S.
Hunter, General Sir A. (Lancaster)
Roundell, Colonel R. F.


Carson, Rt. Hon. Sir Edward H.
Hurst, Lieut.-Colonel Gerald B.
Rutherford, Colonel Sir J. (Darwen)


Casey, T. W.
Inskip, Thomas Walker H.
Samuel, A. M. (Surrey, Farnham)


Cautley, Henry S.
Jackson, Lieut.-Colonel Hon. F. S.
Sassoon, Sir Philip Albert Gustave D.


Cecil, Rt. Hon. Lord H. (Ox. Univ.)
James, Lieut.-Colonel Hon. Cuthbert
Scott, A. M. (Glasgow, Bridgeton)


Cecil, Rt. Hon. Lord R. (Hitchin)
Jesson, C.
Seager, Sir William


Clay, Lieut.-Colonel H. H. Spender
Jodrell, Neville Paul
Seddon, J. A.


Coats, Sir Stuart
Johnstone, Joseph
Seely, Major-General Rt. Hon. John


Cohen, Major J. Brunel
Jones, G. W. H. (Stoke Newington)
Shaw, Hon. Alex. (Kilmarnock)


Collins, Col. Sir G. P. (Greenock)
Joynson-Hicks, Sir William
Short, Alfred (Wednesbury)


Colvin, Lieut.-Colonel Richard Beale
Kellaway, Frederick George
Shortt, Rt. Hon. E. (N'castle-on-T.)


Conway, Sir W. Martin
Kelly, Major Fred (Rotherham)
Sitch, Charles H.


Coote, Colin Reith (Isle of Ely)
Kenyon, Barnet
Sprot, Colonel Sir Alexander


Coote, William (Tyrone, South)
Kinloch-Cooke, Sir Clement
Stanier, Captain Sir Beville


Cope, Major Wm.
Lambert, Rt. Hon. George
Stanley, Major H. G. (Preston)


Cowan, D. M. (Scottish Universities)
Larmor, Sir Joseph
Stanton, Charles B.


Cowan, Sir H. (Aberdeen and Kinc.)
Lewis, Rt. Hon. J. H. (Univ., Wales)
Stephenson, Colonel H. K.


Craig, Colonel Sir J. (Down, Mid.)
Lewis, T. A. (Glam., Pontypridd)
Stevens, Marshall


Craik, Rt. Hon. Sir Henry
Lindsay, William Arthur
Sturrock, J. Leng


Croft, Lieut.-Colonel Henry Page
Locker-Lampson, G. (Wood Green)
Surtees, Brigadier-General H. C.


Curzon, Commander Viscount
Long, Rt. Hon. Walter
Sutherland, Sir William


Davies, Sir Joseph (Chester, Crewe)
Lorden, John William
Talbot, G. A. (Hemel Hempstead)


Davies, Sir William H. (Bristol, S.)
Lyle, C. E. Leonard
Taylor, J.


Davison, Sir W. H. (Kensington, S.)
Lyle-Samuel, Alexander
Terrell, George (Wilts, Chippenham)


Dawes, Commander
Lynn, R. J.
Terrell, Captain R. (Oxford, Henley)


Dockrell, Sir Maurice
M'Donald, Dr. Bouverie F. P.
Thomas, Brig.-Gen. Sir O. (Anglesey)


Donnelly, P.
Macdonald, Rt. Hon. John Murray
Thomas, Sir Robert J. (Wrexham)


Duncannon, Viscount
M'Lean, Lieut.-Col. Charles W. W.
Thomson, F. C. (Aberdeen, South)


Edwards, Major J. (Aberavon)
Magnus, Sir Philip
Thomson, T. (Middlesbrough, West)


Elliot, Capt. Walter E. (Lanark)
Mallalieu, F. W.
Thomson, Sir W. Mitchell-(Maryhill)


Elveden, Viscount
Malone, Major P. B. (Tottenham, S.)
Thorpe, Captain John Henry


Eyres-Monsell, Commander B. M.
Marriott, John Arthur Ransoms
Tickler, Thomas George


Falle, Major Sir Bertram G.
Matthews, David
Townley, Maximilian G.


Farquharson, Major A. C.
Mildmay, Colonel Rt. Hon. F. B.
Turton, E. R.


Fell, Sir Arthur
Moles, Thomas
Waddington, R.


Flides, Henry
Montagu, Rt. Hon. E. S.
Ward. Col. L. (Kingston-upon-Hull)


Finney, Samuel
Moore, Major-General Sir Newton J.
Ward, William Dudley (Southampton)


Fisher, Rt. Hon. Herbert A. L.
Morgan, Major D. Watts
Warner, Sir T. Courtenay T.


FitzRoy, Captain Hon. E. A.
Morison, Thomas Brash
Warren, Lieut.-Col. Sir Alfred H.


Forestier-Walker, L.
Morrison, Hugh
Wason, John Cathcart


Foxcroft, Captain Charles Talbot
Mount, William Arthur
Watson, Captain John Bertrand


Fraser, Major Sir Keith
Munro, Rt. Hon. Robert
Weston, Colonel John W.


Galbraith, Samuel
Murchison, C. K.
Wheler, Lieut.-Colonel C. H.


Gange, E. Stanley
Murray, Lieut.-Colonel A. (Aberdeen)
White, Lieut.-Col. G. D. (Southport)


George, Rt. Hon. David Lloyd
Nall, Major Joseph
Whitla, Sir William


Gibbs, Colonel George Abraham
Neal, Arthur
Wild, Sir Ernest Edward


Gilmour, Lieut.-Colonel John
Newman, Colonel J. R. P.(Finchley)
Williams, Col. Sir R. (Dorset, W.)


Glyn, Major Ralph
Newman, Sir R. H. S. D. L. (Exeter)
Wills, Lieut.-Colonel Sir Gilbert


Goff, Sir R. Park
Nicholl, Commander Sir Edward
Wilson, Daniel M. (Down, West)


Grant, James A.
Nicholson, Reginald (Doncaster)
Wilson, Colonel Leslie O. (Reading)


Green, Albert (Derby)
Nicholson, William G. (Petersfleld)
Wilson, Lieut.-Col. M. J. (Richmond)


Green, Joseph F. (Leicester, W.)
Norris, Colonel Sir Henry G.
Wilson, W. Tyson (Westhoughton)


Greig, Colonel James William
Norton-Griffiths, Lieut.-Col. Sir John
Winterton, Major Earl


Gretton, Colonel John
Oman, Charles William C.
Wood, Hon. Edward F. L. (Ripon)


Gwynne, Rupert S.
O'Neill, Major Hon. Robert W. H.
Wood, Sir H. K.(Woolwich, West)


Hacking, Captain Douglas H.
Ormsby-Gore, Captain Hon. W.
Woods, Sir Robert


Hall, Lieut.-Col. Sir F. (Dulwich)
Palmer, Charles Frederick (Wrekin)
Yate, Colonel Charles Edward


Hancock, John George
Palmer, Lieut.-Colonel G. L.
Yeo, Sir Alfred William


Hanna, George Boyle
Parry, Lieut.-Colonel Thomas Henry
Young, Sir Frederick W. (Swindon)


Harmsworth, C. B. (Bedford, Luton)
Percy, Charles



Harmsworth, Hon. E. C. (Kent)
Pinkham, Lieut.-Colonel Charles
TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—




Lord E. Talbot and Mr. Parker.


NOES.


Barnes, Major H. (Newcastle, E.)
Carter, W. (Nottingham, Mansfield)
Graham, D. M. (Lanark, Hamilton)


Benn, Captain Wedgwood (Leith)
Clynes, Rt. Hon. J. R.
Graham. W. (Edinburgh, Central)


Bromfield, William
Davies, A. (Lancaster, Clitheroe)
Grundy, T. W.


Brown, James (Ayr and Bute)
Edwards, C. (Monmouth, Bedwellty)
Hayday, Arthur


Cape, Thomas
Glanville, Harold James
Hayward, Major Evan




Hodge, Rt. Hon. John
Newbould, Alfred Ernest
Wignall, James


Hogge, James Myles
O'Grady, Captain James
Williams, John (Glamorgan, Gower)


Lawson, John J.
Raffan, Peter Wilson
Wood, Major M. M. (Aberdeen, C.)


Lunn, William
Richardson, R. (Houghton-le-Spring)



Maclean, Neil (Glasgow, Govan)
Robertson, John
TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—


Malone, Lieut.-Col. C. L. (Leyton, E.)
Swan, J. E.
Lieut.-Commander Kenworthy and Colonel Wedgwood.


Murray, Dr. D. (Inverness & Ross)
Thorne, G. R. (Wolverhampton, E.)



Myers, Thomas
Walsh, Stephen (Lancaster, Ince)

REPRESENTATION OF THE PEOPLE BILL.

Reported, so far as amended, from Standing Committee D.

Leave given to the Committee to make a Special Report.

Special Report brought up, and read.

Report and Special Report to lie upon the Table, and to be printed. [No. 113].

Minutes of the Proceedings of the Standing Committee to be printed. [No. 113.]

BILLS REPORTED.

Gas and Water Provisional Orders Bill,

Reported, with Amendments [Provisional Orders confirmed]; Report to lie upon the Table.

Bill, as amended, to be considered To-morrow.

Gas Provisional Orders Bill,

Reported, with Amendments [Provisional Orders confirmed]; Report to lie upon the Table.

Bill, as amended, to be considered To-morrow.

Tredegar Urban District Council Bill, Reported, with Amendments; Report to lie upon the Table, and to be printed.

Mersey Railway Bill [Lords],

Reported, without Amendment; Report to lie upon the Table, and to be printed.

Tees Valley Water Bill [Lords],

Reported, with Amendments; Report to lie upon the Table, and to be printed.

Bank of Scotland Bill [Lords],

Wandsworth, Wimbledon and Epsom District Gas Bill [Lords],

London County Council (Money) Bill,

City of London (Various Powers) Bill [Lords],

Reported, with Amendments; Reports to lie upon the Table.

Carbery's Divorce Bill [Lords],

Reported, without Amendment, from the Select Committee on Divorce Bills; Report to lie upon the Table, and to be printed.

Bill to be read the Third time.

Cooper's Divorce Bill [Lords],

Reported, without Amendment, from the Select Committee on Divorce Bills; Report to lie upon the Table, and to be printed.

Bill to be read the Third time.

London Electric Railway Companies (Fares, etc.) Bill,

Reported, with Amendments [Title amended]; Report to lie upon the Table, and to be printed.

Derwent Valley Water Board Bill.

Reported, with Amendments, Report to lie upon the Table, and to be printed.

CARBERY'S DIVORCE BILL [Lords] AND COOPER'S DIVORCE BILL [Lords],

Ordered, That the Minutes of Evidence and Proceedings in the House of Lords on the Second Reading of Carbery's Divorce Bill [Lords] and Cooper's Divorce Bill [Lords], together with the documents deposited in the cases, be returned to the House of Lords.—[Mr. Morison.]

MESSAGE FROM THE LORDS.

That they have passed a Bill, intituled, "An Act to authorise the construction of certain new works for improving the harbour of Dover; the raising of further moneys by the Dover Harbour Board; and for other purposes." [Dover Harbour Bill [Lords.]

That they have agreed to,—

Amendments to—

Maidenhead Gas Bill [Lords],

Llandrindod Wells Urban District Council Bill [Lords],

Masham Urban District Council Bill [Lords],

Risca Urban District Council Bill [Lords],

Severn Navigation Bill [Lords], without Amendment.

Dover Harbour Bill [Lords], Read the First time; and referred to the Examiners of Petitions for Private Bills.

SELECTION (STANDING COM- MITTEES).

STANDING COMMITTEE B.

Sir SAMUEL ROBERTS reported from the Committee of Selection; That they had added the following Members to Standing Committee B; the Lord Advocate and Mr. Charles Murray.

Sir SAMUEL ROBERTS further reported from the Committee; That they had discharged the following Member from Standing Committee B (added in respect of the Increase of Rent and Mortgage Interest (Restrictions) Bill: Mr. Aneurin Williams.

Reports to lie upon the Table.

PRIVATE BILLS (GROUP D).

Sir HARRY SAMUEL reported from the Committee on Group D of Private Bills; That, for the convenience of parties, the Committee had adjourned till Tuesday next, at half-past eleven of the clock.

Report to lie upon the Table.

Orders of the Day — FIREARMS BILL [LORDS].

Order read for resuming Adjourned Debate on Question [8th June], "That the Bill be now read a Second time."

Question again proposed. Debate resumed.

Mr. KILEY: In the discussion which took place the other evening on this Bill, I thought it my duty to call the attention of the House to what I regarded as several objectionable features which are contained in the proposal. One of these was the objectionable arrangements which are being made with regard to certain traders who are a very deserving class of the community. They are not to be allowed on any consideration to carry on their business as they have carried it on for a considerable time. If hon. Members will look through the Clauses they will see that pawnbrokers are not to be allowed to receive or to sell or in any way deal in firearms. The butcher, the baker, or the candlestick maker will be perfectly entitled to dispose of these goods, but if a man carries on the occupation of a pawnbroker he will be debarred from doing so. I think this is the first time such a principle has been laid down in a Bill, and the House ought to give more than the usual consideration to a proposal of that kind. There is also a proposal that no person should be allowed to have a firearm without a permit from the police officer of the district. If this Bill had laid down some general principles for the guidance of the police officer, I could have understood it, but I do not think this power should be left to the free and unfettered discretion of a police officer, however able he may be. Some police officers are very capable, some take a long view of their duties and responsibilities, but there may equally be other police officers who are very aggressive and obnoxious and difficult people to get on with, and therefore I object to powers being given to them such as are proposed in this Bill. It is quite true that it is open to an aggrieved person to go to the local Court and contest the action of the police officer, but sitting as I do on the Bench, where one has to decide upon the action of a police officer who, rightly or wrongly, has given his decision that he does not wish the appli-
cant to have firearms, I realise that the person would be rather prejudiced in his application. Therefore I feel that if these powers are to be left to a police officer, some general principle should be laid down to which the officer should have to adhere. Power is also given to the Minister to make rules and regulations. During the War that was a very wise and perhaps a very necessary power, but it has not been, in my experience, an altogether satisfactory procedure. These rules can be worked in a way that would, shall I say, meet the needs of the case, but, on the other hand, they are very often passed in haste and issued to officials to administer, and these officials have to interpret the rules, and it is very difficult at times to get a proper view taken of the proposals. Then, the Minister in charge now may take one view of his responsibilities and another Minister following him may take a totally different view. Therefore, if powers of this kind are to be given, rules should be made in the Bill, and it should not be left to the mood of the particular Minister of the day as to what regulations should be made. There is another provision in the Bill which I think may become a serious danger, and that is in reference to the export trade of this country. This is a very important business, and one does not want to put any difficulties in the way of the trade being carried on when a dealer gets a request from our Dominions for firearms, or even shot-guns. A distinction might be drawn between revolvers, which are a dangerous type of firearm, and other varieties. If these proposals were confined to revolvers, or firearms of that type, there would be a good deal to be said for them, but this Bill will apply to others besides those things. It might even affect the little shot-guns which boys use for shooting sparrows. As all these things are embodied in this Bill, it calls, I think, for a particular examination, and I invite the Home Secretary to elaborate a little more what he proposes to do under this Bill. If he does not, I shall feel it my duty to move the rejection of the measure

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: This is a Bill which contains very much more than hon. Members might at first sight suppose. When I first glanced at it I took it to be a Bill to deal with the supposed epidemic of crimes of violence in the country; in fact, when the Home
Secretary attempted rather to force it through the House at a late hour the other night, he told us that was practically all there was in the Bill. He did, I admit, say something about the international question, but the impression that his speech left on us was that it was a Bill to deal simply with the case of men who had become used to violence in the War, who have not been able to settle down, who may have been men with criminal propensities and who have got used to carrying firearms and are a menace to the public. However, there is really a great deal more than that. I hope to show the House that as regards the first object, the prevention of an illicit traffic in and the illegal carrying about of lethal weapons, the Bill is unnecessary, and that as regards international control of the traffic in arms which has been referred to by the hon. Member for Whitechapel (Mr. Kiley) it does not go far enough, and in these circumstances I do not think the House should give it a Second Reading without far more consideration. With regard to the prevention of persons carrying pistols in England, of course Ireland is put into the Bill, but, as I suppose all hon. Members know, the state of affairs in Ireland is such, unfortunately, that over a great part of the country there is no means of enforcing the King's Writ, and this Bill will not be worth the paper it is written on so far as Ireland is concerned. In England there is in force the Pistols Act. It is a very short Act, almost a one-Clause Act, and it provides, briefly, that no person shall purchase a revolver or pistol or pocket firearm of that description unless he has got a gun licence, and a gun licence must be got from a police officer or from a magistrate. I have heard it said by older Members of this House, very experienced Members, that there is very little need for new legislation. I believe the hon. Baronet opposite (Sir Frederick Banbury) will bear me out in this, that there is very little need for half these new Bills, and that all that is necessary is that the old ones should be put in force. If this Pistols Act of 1903, introduced by the Conservative Government of that time, were enforced the evil would very largely disappear. Practically the whole of the Clauses in this Bill dealing with the internal traffic in firearms are covered in the Pistols Act. The Bill now introduced and the Pistols Act contain a Clause
which I can only suppose is put in as a jest. That is Clause 4 in this Bill and Clause 5 in the Pistols Act. It forbids a person to sell a revolver to anyone who is drunk or insane. Is it really necessary to put in a Clause like that? Is any man in his sober senses going to sell a pistol to a drunken man or a lunatic?

Mr. RATCLIFFE: Plenty would if they got a profit.

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: My hon. Friend says they would do it for a profit. I have a better opinion of my own countrymen. I do not believe any gunsmith or pawnbroker or dealer in weapons in the land would knowingly sell a weapon to a lunatic or a man in drink, and I consider a Clause like that—I do not know whether this is an example of the Hibernian humour of the right hon. and learned Gentleman who introduced this Bill, or whether he is following the precedent in the Act of the Conservative Government—an affront to the whole of the trade of the country, and quite unnecessary, and I hope it will be struck out in Committee. But there is a much greater principle involved than the mere prevention of discharged convicts having weapons. In the past one of the most jealously guarded rights of the English was that of carrying arms. For long our people fought with great tenacity for the right of carrying the weapon of the day, the sword, and it was only in quite recent times that that was given up. It has been a well-known object of the Central Government in this country to deprive people of their weapons. The most notable and successful case was that of the King's Government in the time of Henry VII., whn he got into his hands the whole of the artillery in England, and by that means was able to overawe and break the power of the great nobles. That is the most successful case in which the Executive has attempted in this country to gather all power into its hands. I do not know whether this Bill is aimed at any such goal as that but, if so, I would point out to the right hon. Gentleman that if he deprives private citizens in this country of every sort of weapon they could possibly use, he will not have deprived them of their power, because the great weapon of democracy to-day is not the halberd or the sword or firearms, but the power of withholding their labour. I am sure that the power of withholding
his labour is one of which certain Members of our Executive would very much like to deprive him. But it is our last line of defence against tyranny, and it has been successfully used recently, especially in Germany. Under these circumstances I do not think I need press that point any further.
I come to the other point of view, the prevention of free and unrestricted trade in firearms. I do not think that case is any more urgent now than it has been in previous years. I know there have been very sensational cases in the country recently, but we have had this sort of temporary disturbance and panic in years gone by. There was the famous shooting case which culminated in the Sidney Street affair, when the Secretary for War made his first effort at military command after he had left the Army. At that time there was a great outcry in favour of arming the police, and there was a demand for special legislation against the carrying of pistols. But it passed away in time and nothing more happened. Like my hon. friend the Member for Whitechapel (Mr. Kilby), I very much object to power being given to the police to judge whether a person is fit to have a firearm or not. I hope the Committee will not give such a power to them. Under the original Pistols Act that power was placed in the hands of magistrates in petty sessions, and this giving the right to the police to decide a point of this kind is quite a new development in this country, and is contrary to English practice. In England the police are very respected public servants; on the Continent they are petty officials with tremendous powers, which they use to the full and which are not conducive to the free development of those nations. We do not want that kind of thing here, and I hope that the power will be given, not to the police, but to magistrates at petty sessions, and that there will be no attempt to make police officers petty officials to control the concerns of private people. Any such attempt should be resisted by the House to the utmost. We have here a chance at any rate of stopping one more attempt to set up a petty police bureaucracy in this country.
There is a much more important principle involved in this Bill, one with which
the right hon. and learned Gentleman dealt very briefly when he introduced it the other night. He told us the object was to allow the Government to control the traffic in arms. He mentioned a Convention that had sat in Paris. He gave no particulars by which it was possible to trace the body to which he referred, but I assume it was in connection with the League of Nations, and I should like to read out to hon. Members part of Article 8 of the Covenant of the League, as follows:
The members of the League agree that the manufacture by private enterprise of munitions and implements of war is open to grave objection. The Council shall advise how the evil effects attendant upon such manufacture can be prevented, due regard being had to the necessities of those members of the League who are not able to manufacture the munitions and implements of war necessary for their safety.
That Article was signed by the Signatories to the Covenant. The hon. Member for Whitechapel dealt with the legitimate trade in sporting guns, etc., for the Colonies, and I am inclined to agree with him that that is a trade with which no one wishes to interfere. It will, however, be hampered by this Bill. The trade in munitions of war and weapons generally, however, is a matter to which I wish to draw the attention of hon. Members, so far as it is affected by the Bill. We already have the prohibition in the Covenant of the League of the manufacture by private enterprise of any weapon for the discharge of poison gas and liquid fire, and, therefore, the principle is accepted. I want to know why the Government, acting upon this pious declaration of the Covenant, are not also prohibiting the manufacture by private enterprise in this country of all weapons and munitions of war. They would do a tremendous service to humanity if they would adopt that policy, and I think that probably they could persuade other nations of their goodwill. All nations have goodwill at heart, and if they were approached in the right spirit, they could be induced to collaborate with us in putting an end to this traffic. One of the main causes of war is propaganda by the great armament firms on both sides deliberately encouraged and subsidised. It has been proved, for instance, that Krupps subsidised newspapers in Germany in order to make trouble between that country. Propa-
ganda by big armament firms has been one of the most fruitful causes of international misunderstandings which have ended in the terrible tragedy of war. If we had the Government coming down with a Bill to prohibit the private manufacture of and trade in weapons of war, I am sure this House would support them. We have no such proposal here, and I am not sure that this Bill is even aimed at the traffic in arms in various parts of the world. I was once engaged in trying to check the gun running traffic across the Persian Gulf. That traffic could have been checked at its source but for certain diplomatic difficulties raised by foreign countries. We have an opportunity of stopping it now, and I only wish this Bill had been so worded as to cover that particular question. The whole business of the international trade in arms, apart from private enterprise, is one which it is opportune to discuss at this point. I do not know how many wars are going on in Europe which are being waged with weapons supplied by us. The Bolshevik army is liberally supplied with British-manufactured weapons of war.

Mr. SPEAKER: The hon. and gallant Member must confine his attention to the subject matter of the Bill, which has nothing to do with the supply of arms to the Bolsheviks.

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: Then I will not mention any particular nation. I submit that the power to make this Bill effective in that direction lies entirely in the hands of the Secretary of State, and I hope he will avail himself of it to the full. I must make one remark, however, with regard to the supply of weapons to youths. Under the Pistols Act of 1903 no person under the age of 18 was allowed to buy a revolver. I have been brought up among firearms all my life. I probably had a gun at as early an age as any Member of this House. I have no particular belief in depriving boys of guns. Still, I do think that no person under the age of 18 should be allowed in these days to buy a pistol. It was laid down in the Pistols Act that anyone of the age of 14 years and one day, boy or girl, could buy a lethal weapon. Young democracy is being educated to-day by means of the cinematograph, and magistrates have frequently declared that certain crimes committed by young people have been due to their seeing similar crimes
enacted on the screen. I would prefer to have seen the age raised from 14 to 18. I would like to draw the attention of the House to the fact that, with regard to Ireland, the age is raised to 16. In Scotland, England and Wales a boy or girl over 14 can buy a pistol. May I ask why Irish youths are differently treated, and if they only come to years of discretion at a later age than young people in other parts of the United Kingdom? Finally, I would suggest that although this Act is required more in Ireland than in any other part of the Kingdom, it will be utterly useless there. I suppose the right hon. and learned Gentleman will admit that we can no more put this Act into operation in Ireland than we can govern the provinces in which to-day we are totally unable to maintain order. It is a waste of time, therefore, to attempt to apply this Bill to Ireland. For all these reasons, I am afraid, unless the Home Secretary is prepared to give more satisfactory assurances, I shall have to vote against the Motion.

Earl WINTERTON: This Bill is very typical of the way in which the Government nowadays manage their business. They invariably lock the stable door after the steed has disappeared. To have been of any use in Ireland, the Bill should have been introduced 18 months ago, and, so far as the present situation in that country is concerned, I do not believe the Bill will have the slightest effect. The Home Secretary knows perfectly well that the ordinary law in Ireland does not run there now. I do not agree with the hon. Gentlemen who have spoken to-day. This is not a bad little Bill, and I can understand why anyone holding the view which those two hon. Members, and those who act with them, entertain would object to it very strongly.

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: Why?

Earl WINTERTON: I will proceed to explain why, and will take what the hon. and gallant Gentleman himself has said. He holds the most extraordinary theories of constitutional history and law. His idea is that the State is an aggressive body, which is endeavouring to deprive the private individual of the weapons which Heaven has given into his hands to fight against the State. He told us he was sorry to say that, in the reign of Henry VII, the then Government succeeded in
disarming a large portion of the population. Holding those views, and believing that it is desirable or legitimate or justifiable for private individuals to arm themselves, with, as far as I understand his remarks, the ultimate intention of using their arms against the forces of the State, he objects to this Bill. There are other people who hold those views in this country, and it is because of the existence of people of that type that the Government has introduced this Bill, but has introduced it, as I have said, much too late.

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: I do not think the Noble Lord wishes to misrepresent me, and therefore I am sure he will forgive me for interrupting him. Surely he understands that the very foundation of the liberty of the subject in this country is that he can, if driven to do so, resist, and I hope he will always be able to resist. You can only govern with the consent of the people.

Earl WINTERTON: That would involve a long constitutional argument which would be out of order on this Bill, but I will put this point through you, Mr. Speaker, to the hon. and gallant Member. I say it is intolerable that, at this time, such a doctrine should be preached in this House as that it is desirable that people should arm themselves against the State. And, even when it is from the hon. and gallant Member that such an argument proceeds, I say it is a kind of argument calculated to do the gravest injury in the country. I am quite sure that the hon. Member for Whitechapel (Mr. Kiley), at any rate, would not agree with that argument, although he opposes the Bill. He opposes the Bill on other lines. I feel sure that there are very few hon. Gentlemen in this House who would support the argument put forward by the hon. and gallant Member.
This is a Bill of considerable importance, and I am very glad that the Government has introduced it, even at this late hour, and that they propose to strengthen the powers possessed by the Home Secretary with regard to the possession of firearms by criminals, persons of weak intellect, and persons ill-disposed against the State. As the law stands at present, there is far, too much opportunity for all of those three classes of people to avail themselves of firearms. It is per-
tinent to the consideration of this subject to point out that it is desirable that the Home Secretary should be armed with greater powers than he possesses at the present time, for the purpose of carrying out his function of securing the internal safety of the realm. It would be out of order on this Bill to do more than mention the fact that the powers of the Home Secretary in this country are very much less wide than those of the corresponding Ministers in continental countries, and even in the United States of America. He has not, for example, any power over a great portion of the police forces of this country. The Minister of the Interior in France, on the other hand, controls the police in practically every county in the country. It is, therefore, desirable, in these very difficult times, that the Minister responsible for the internal security of the country should be armed with the powers necessary to enable him to deal with the situation with which he is likely to be faced. Unquestionably, since the War, there are far more people in this and every other country than there were before the War, who not only know how to use firearms, but who, as the result of their War experience, and of the small value necessarily placed upon life during the War, are prepared to use those firearms against the State and its officers. That has been proved, not only by the number of acts of a criminal nature which have been committed since the Armistice, but by the threats of violence which have proceeded from potential criminals of a political type. Before the War, the majority of the people in this country had almost forgotten that there were such things as firearms, and it was not necessary that the Home Secretary or the police should possess the powers which are necessary to-day. I recollect that, at the time of the Sidney Street outrage, which was referred to by the hon. and gallant Member, it came out by means of question and answer in this House that the Metropolitan Police were unprovided with firearms and were uninstructed in their use. That was simply because the average criminal in those days did not possess firearms, and shooting by criminals was an exceedingly rare occurrence. That, however, is not the case to-day. One constantly reads in England, Scotland and Wales of criminals using firearms against the police. While no one suggests that any attempt at armed in-
surrection is likely on the part of the great mass of the people of this country, it is desirable to prevent political criminals who wish to overthrow the State by violent means from being able to obtain firearms—

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: What about the Ulster Volunteer's?

Earl WINTERTON: —and to arm the Home Secretary with larger and wider powers than he possesses at the present time. It is well known that there is, at any rate, a proportion of persons in this country who are prepared to use illegal weapons against the State and its officers for political reasons. They are entirely lacking in physical courage, as is proved by the fact that they were conscientious objectors during the War, but it is desirable to be prepared for them as well. The hon. Member for East Edinburgh (Mr. Hogge) on Tuesday night made a most extraordinary statement. He said:
I am only pointing out that this is a Bill in which, I think, the Home Secretary wants to deal with the misuse of firearms—the prevention, for instance, of a desperate criminal having access to arms, so that he can provide himself with a means of offence against peaceful citizens—and there is the bigger question which must arise on a Bill of this sort, namely, the political aspect"—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 8th June, 1920; Col. 365, Vol. 130."]
Later on he said that the Act might have a political effect. Those are very strange words to fall from the lips of a member of the party to which the hon. Gentleman belongs. I should be very sorry to think that he or his party held the view that the use of firearms in any way could possibly have a political aspect. The only meaning, if there is any, to be attached to his words was that firearms might be used for political purposes, or that the State, in depriving people of the use of them, would be doing it for political purposes.

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: What about the Ulster Volunteers?

Earl WINTERTON: That does not arise on this Bill. If it did, I could give the hon. and gallant Gentleman a very much better answer than he would be prepared for, and I could make a better case than he makes when he opposes this Bill. As one who supports the Second Reading of this Bill, I would suggest to the Government one or two respects in which it
might even be strengthened, and thereby carry out more efficiently the purposes which the Government have in mind. For example, Clause 8 deals with the removal of firearms or ammunition from one place to another in the United Kingdom or for export, and it says that the Secretary of State may prohibit their removal or export unless it is authorised by the Chief Officer of Police of the district from which they are to be removed. I do not see that it is necessary to weaken the powers of the Home Secretary, and I should be glad if it could be indicated, in the reply on behalf of the Government, why it is necessary to weaken his powers by making the matter dependent upon what may be done by the local police. The central executive authority should have full power, in view of the times in which we live, to prohibit the removal of firearms and ammunition. The House will realise that that only refers to the rifles and other arms coming under this Bill, and not to ordinary shot-guns. With regard to the remarks of the hon. and gallant Member for Central Hull on the manufacture and export of munitions of war, I think he would find that there are many on this side of the House who would be disposed to agree with him that the time has come when the question whether the manufacture of munitions of war in, and their export from, this country should be allowed, is a question which should be most earnestly considered by the Government. It would not be in order to deal with it in full on this Bill, but I rather wish the Government had taken wider powers in that respect. I can see no moral justification for permitting big armament firms in this country to export arms at the present time, and I wish there was a Clause in the Bill which made it more difficult for them to do so. I want to put another point to the Government in the hope that they will put down an Amendment in Committee. Clause 12, which is referred to as the saving Clause, and deals with the case of antique firearms and of firearms which are in the nature of War relics, says at the commencement:
Nothing in this Act relating to firearms shall apply to an antique firearm which is sold, bought, carried or possessed as a curiosity of ornament.
I do not want to deal with what is partly a Committee point, but I hope that before the Committee stage the Government will
put down an Amendment making those words a little clearer, because I think they will be very difficult to interpret, and may lead to litigation. I never knew such a term as "antique firearm" to occur in an Act of Parliament, and I suggest that it might be qualified by means of an Amendment to the effect that it should be something which is not capable of being used with modern ammunition, or something of that sort. The provisions that relate to firearms as trophies of war are, I think, quite satisfactory and sufficiently wide, but I am bound to confess that there seems to me to be one rather serious mistake in the Bill. In Clause 11 the following words are used:
Provided that a smooth bore shot-gun or air-gun and ammunition therefor shall not in Great Britain be deemed to be a firearm and ammunition for the purpose of the provisions of this Act other than those relating to the removal of firearms and ammunition from one place to another or for export.
5.0 P.M.
The effect of those words is to bring within the scope of the Act a sporting gun or an air-gun such as is used by children. I suggest that the Government might consider also whether the small rifles which are popularly known as rook or rabbit rifles might not be excluded. A point also arises about the sporting rifles used in Scotland by a comparatively small proportion of the population, which is not very popular in the estimation of many hon. Members of this House. I presume the Government does not wish to prohibit or make more difficult the use of sporting rifles for deer-stalking, and I venture to think they might find some form of words to exclude them, while at the same time carrying out the object of the Bill, which is to prevent the use of and trade in ordinary rifles. Possibly it may be somewhat difficult to carry out that suggestion, because there is the question of the ammunition being the same, but I hope it may be found to be possible. Another point which was raised by the hon. and gallant Member for Central Hull was the age at which firearms could be used. The Pistols Act of 1903 is repealed; and under that Act there are in Scotland, in England, and I think in Wales varying ages below which a boy is not allowed to have a pistol. I think 18 is quite young enough for any boy in any part of the United Kingdom to be provided with firearms within the meaning of the Act,
although he can have a shot-gun or air-gun before that. One views with some alarm the increase of the use of revolvers by youths. The age might well be made 18. Clause 14 deals with the unlawful Drilling Act, which was brought in soon after the end of the Napoleonic Wars in consequence of the large bodies of persons in various parts of the country engaged in military evolutions and drill for the purpose of overthrowing the Government of the day. The Act was passed in a hurry through both Houses of Parliament to deal with that, and it enables the Lieutenant and two justices of the peace of a county to prohibit people coming together for the purpose of training and drilling and the use of arms. Clause 14 proposes to give the power at present exercised by two justices and the Lieutenant to the Secretary of State. I think that is quite right, but at all events the Unlawful Drilling Act has been in abeyance for the last ten years. It was certainly in operation in the case of the Ulster volunteers and the Sinn Fein volunteers.

Captain WEDGWOOD BENN: indicated dissent.

Earl WINTERTON: It is true there have been prosecutions under the Act, but it is in abeyance in this way, that it has never been properly carried out. In this country there have been cases in our history when persons have assembled together for an illegal act, and have never been interfered with at all.

Captain BENN: I did not mean that the Act was effective. What I meant by shaking my head was that the Government in Ireland do not act under that Act, but under the Defence of the Realm Act.

Earl WINTERTON: I said "in operation" when I should have said "in effect." I agree that the Act is in operation, but it has not been effective It is true that they do not act under its terms, and I regret that they do not. They might have made more extended use of those terms. I think this is rather an important Clause. It is merely another example of what good the Bill will do, because it will put greater powers into the hands of the executive officer responsible for the internal security of the country. While I have no doubt that some other hon. Members, for the same
reason that the hon. and gallant Gentleman (Lieut.-Commander Kenworthy) put forward, may oppose the Bill, I shall be very glad that it has been introduced. My only regret is that it was not introduced some time ago. The only people who will have reason to fear its operation are the aiders, abettors and participants in crime and disorder in this country or in Ireland.

Captain BOWYER: I should like to call attention to one or two features which will be of interest, especially from the point of view of the traders, who in the Bill are called "firearm dealers." As regards exports I should like to ask whether it is not a fact that Clause 1, Sub-section (1), makes it absolutely impossible to export arms at all in that the purchaser has got to have a certificate. Moreover, looking at the transactions which will occur from the seller's point of view, is it not a fact that the seller has to exact from the purchaser his signature in a book? If that is the case it makes it physically impossible for anyone outside this country to buy arms or ammunition. It puzzles me enormously because the first words of Clause 8 expressly give the Home Secretary power to prohibit the export of arms, and I thought my reading of it must be mistaken. Another point which will interest the traders very much is that there is no differentiation, as far as I can see, between the big wholesale manufacturer and the small retail dealer. The case of a man with a shop in the Strand and the wholesale manufacturer cannot be judged pari passu; a distinction must be made; and in the Bill both are dealt with as being firearm dealers, and certain things, such as a daily return of ammunition, are called for from the wholesale manufacturer, which it is impossible for him to comply with. I do not know whether the House realises that if my reading of this is correct Clause 2, Sub-section (3)—I do not say that it is a bad thing and that it should not be thoroughly supported—absolutely localises any dealer's chance of dealing, because it says:
Every person who manufactures or sells firearms shall provide and keep a register of transactions and shall enter or cause to be entered therein the particulars set forth in the Second Schedule to this Act, and in the case of a sale shall require the purchaser, if not known to him, to furnish particulars and to sign his name and address in the said register.
Surely that means that if I have a shop in Birmingham, I can only deal with people who come to Birmingham. I do not want the right hon. Gentleman to think I have a shop anywhere, nor am I, unfortunately, connected with the trade. But it strikes me that the result in this case is absolutely to localise the trade of the retailer, and possibly of the wholesaler too; I do not know, but I should be glad to know whether it is not putting upon the retailer rather an anxious task, if he has got to say to any customer who writes to him, "No, I cannot supply you because you must come and let me see whether I know you." Of course, the answer to this may be that under Clause 1, Sub-section (1) if a person has a certificate and sends it by post, and the dealer recognises the name as one with which he is familiar, the journey is unnecessary, but apart from that there is a certain uncertainty, and I shall be very glad to hear what the right hon. Gentleman has to say about it. These are Committee points, but if he can say whether there is any substance in any of them, or that I have grossly misread the Bill, I shall be obliged.

Major BARNES: The Government has adopted in regard to the last two important measures before the House, a very conciliatory attitude. On the Agriculture Bill, the Minister in charge said they were open to give in Committee the most generous consideration to Amendments which might be put forward. The same thing is said with regard to the Gas Regulation Bill. I hope we may have a similar assurance from the Minister in charge of this Bill. The Noble Lord (Earl Winterton) raised a very interesting point, and opened up a fairly wide avenue in a perhaps rather academic Debate, as to the limits of resistance to the State, which were in order. I hope it will not be altogether disagreeable to him to learn that, I think, on this side of the House, we are in very much more agreement with him than perhaps he believes. There could be nothing more dangerous at the present time, or indeed at any time, than to lead the people of the country to believe that their method of redress was in the direction of armed resistance to the State. The time for that has gone. We have in our methods of election, in our access to Parliament, and in other ways, means of redress against the action of the State which in times past were not afforded,
and some of us, looking back into history, may believe it was because at one time people were able to carry weapons and use them against the State that we are in the happy position in which we find ourselves to-day. When coming to the House I sometimes pass what I think is the finest statue in London, that to Oliver Cromwell, which stands outside the House. We certainly owe much of our liberty to-day, and the fact that we do not need, and I hope never will need, to resort to armed resistance, to the fact that some 200 or 300 years ago there were people who found it necessary to take up arms against the State. But when all is said and done, there is also agreement between the two sides of the House that the State may act in a very aggressive way. Perhaps in this quarter of the House we are more sensitive to aggression made upon life and limb and liberty than in other quarters of the House, and in other quarters the greatest sensitiveness is shown when the State makes aggression upon forms of property. In both cases, the House is agreed that there should be a remedy against the action of the State, and that the proper remedy is afforded by access to the Courts. That is a matter upon which there will be unanimous agreement on both sides of the House. Whenever the Executive tends to aggression, whether it be against life and liberty or against property, I think the feeling of the House is that the subject should have free appeal to the Courts, and I am quite sure the noble Lord will agree that nothing should be done to bar the subject from that redress, and it is by giving him opportunity through Parliament and through the Courts to find redress that we shall most effectively turn his attention away from using weapons.
That being so, we are bound to scrutinise carefully, and perhaps more particularly in a Bill of this kind, any Clauses which would remove from the subject that means of redress, and it is in that respect that I think the portions of the Bill which affect Ireland should be particularly scrutinised. Perhaps we have some little ground of complaint of a certain lack of frankness on the part of the Secretary of State when he introduced the Bill. It was opened up to us as one which dealt with criminals and with the export of arms, but nothing was said of its relation to the present situation in Ireland.
In view of the circumstances under which the Bill was brought forward, that matter should have been introduced and spoken of. I admit it was at a late hour in the evening, and the right hon. Gentleman probably wanted to get through his job. I am not making any very serious complaint; I am merely pointing out that introducing Bills at that late hour and putting them through under such pressure is likely to lead to lack of apprehension of what very serious issues may be involved.
With regard to that portion of the Bill which really deals with criminal conduct it is not surprising that at the end of a great war we should need some legislation of that kind. The last Bill—the Pistols Act—was introduced in 1903 after the South African War, and arose out of the necessities of the time. After any great war there is a certain callousness with regard to life that needs to be dealt with, and in so far as this Bill merely extends the Act of 1903, bringing not only pistols and revolvers but other firearms within its scope, the whole House is, I think, willing to support the right hon. Gentleman. With regard to the very much more important part of the Bill which deals with the manufacture, sale and export, not only of firearms but also of weapons referred to in Clause 6, weapons "designed for the discharge of any noxious liquid, gas or other thing," that also is a provision which will be welcomed by the whole House. Anything the Government does to carry out either the particular convention that has been referred to, or to proceed in the direction of disarmament, or the control of the manufacture and sale of arms and munitions, will be entirely supported from this side of the House. I hope that in the passage of the Bill through Committee the Government will be prepared to extend that section of the Bill and make this a really comprehensive and effective measure. It is a Bill which is dealing fairly, comprehensively and effectively with the sale to individuals, and we should like to see it deal just as effectively with the manufacture and sale to countries, and if the Government will extend these provisions in that direction the extension will be welcomed by the whole House. There is a very useful provision in the first part of the Bill dealing with the sale of arms to individuals
under which it is necessary to keep a register showing the sales that have been made, and in which the nature of the transaction is set down, and particulars of the person to whom the sale is made. It would be useful to have a similar provision in the second part of the Bill dealing with the export of arms and munitions in a wholesale kind of way, so that we might really know the destination of arms and ammunition which leave this country, particularly under the present circumstances, when there appears to be a good deal of confusion as to whether we are supplying arms and munitions to places abroad.
I wish to draw particular attention to those Clauses of the Bill which deal with Ireland, because we are now making a piece of permanent legislation. If the condition of Ireland had been the same as this country—and all of us only wish it were so—it might have been sufficient merely to extend the operation of the Pistols Act of 1903 to Ireland, but I do not think anyone is prepared to deny that some kind of exceptional kind of legislation with regard to firearms is necessary in Ireland. But such exceptional legislation ought not to be embodied in a permanent Statute. This Bill is not for an emergency, but is a Bill which will remain for a very considerable time. The proper course for the Government to take would be not to embody exceptional and emergency legislation in this Bill. If they want special powers to deal with Ireland, they should have dealt with it in a separate Bill. We cannot at present stress too much the importance of doing nothing further to irritate and aggravate the condition of things in that unhappy country. We are in the extraordinary position of carrying on a kind of civil war there, and at the same time passing a measure of self-government. It appears to me that when the people of Ireland see the provisions—if they ever do see them, or if they trouble to notice them—they will see in them a further grievance and a fresh source of irritation, that a distinction has been made between that country and this in permanent legislation. In this country the powers of search can only be exercised on the warrant of a Justice of the Peace. It may well be that in Ireland, at present, it would not be possible to rely on a provision of that kind; but one would
have thought, at least, that the warrant of search should have been granted by a resident magistrate. But this Bill goes even beyond that, and the authority to issue the warrant is placed in the hands of the chief officer of the police. It cannot be that the discretion of the resident magistrate is impugned by this provision, and it seems to me the Government might have placed the power in his hands. Then the power given in Ireland to the ordinary constable appears to be extremely drastic. Clause 9 says:
Any constable may demand from any person whom he has reason to believe to be in possession of, or to be using or carrying, a firearm or ammunition (except in circumstances where the possession, using, or carrying a firearm or ammunition without a firearm certificate does not constitute an offence) the production of his firearm certificate.
That is the first step. The constable thinking that anyone has a firearm in his possession can demand to see his certificate. If the person fails to produce it, then the constable may require him to declare his name and address. If he refuses, or if the constable suspects him of giving a false name, then the constable may apprehend him without a warrant.
It is in Clause 16 that perhaps the most serious distinction is made between Ireland and this country. It is a distinction which brings me back to the argument that if we are to prevent the possible resort to firearms, if we are going to take away these primitive weapons—which I should have thought we might long ago have dispensed with—we must leave people with the more efficient weapon which the course of civilisation has brought into existence, that is, the right of access to the courts. In the Section dealing with Ireland we find that in Sub-section (7) the provisions as to appeals shall not apply, that is to say, that, in this permanent legislation applying to Ireland, while in Great Britain the right of appeal is given, in Ireland it is taken away. That is a point the Government would do well to consider in Committee. If they would remove that, and one or two other distinctions which have been made, I feel sure they might rely on having generally the full support of this House.

Sir F. BANBURY: I want to ask my hon. and gallant Friend (Mayor Baird) one or two questions with regard to Clause 2. In Sub-section (2) it is stated:
A pawnbroker shall not take in pawn a firearm or ammunition from any person, or sell a firearm or ammunition to any person, and a pawnbroker shall not be registered as a firearms dealer under this Act.
And then there are provisions dealing, rightly I think, with cases where before the passing of this Bill into law, a pawnbroker has taken arms in pawn. I quite see the object of preventing a pawnbroker taking firearms in pawn, but I do not see the object of preventing him being registered as a firearms' dealer. The pawn broker is a more or less responsible person well known to the police—I do not mean in a wrong sense—but his business and his shop are there, and the police know what is going on. It seems to me a little extraordinary that he should not be allowed to be registered. The House, I am sure, does not want it in any way to put unnecessary restrictions on trade. Then I would like to ask a question with regard to Sub-sections (6) and (7) of the same Clause. Sub-section (6) says:
Every person who sells a firearm or ammunition shall comply with any instructions addressed to the seller contained in the firearm certificate produced by the purchaser.
Supposing I am a manufacturer in Birmingham and I have an order from Japan or China, or any other country not at war with us, for so many thousand rifles—it would be impossible for me to obtain from them instructions addressed to the purchaser by the Government, and it would be impossible for them to produce a firearms' certificate. Therefore it looks to me—I am sure it must be unintentional—as if this Bill would stop the export trade in arms. At the present moment we do not want to stop trade if we can possibly avoid it. All the energies of the Government should be devoted to encouraging trade and especially export trade. We hear sometimes a good deal about the exchanges and standardising the exchange. The only way to standardise the exchange is to sell something to foreign countries and receive something in return, and if we are able to export arms I think care should be taken that we do not interfere by this Bill with any export trade that may be carried on.

The UNDER-SECRETARY of STATE for the HOME DEPARTMENT (Major Baird): The points which have been raised are mostly Committee points, which it will be impossible for me to deal with at this stage. One or two questions,
however, have been raised, to which a reply will be expected. With regard to the question of pawnbrokers, it is no use ignoring the fact that the object of this Bill is to restrict dealings in arms. It would be impossible to administer this Bill if the pawnbroker is allowed to deal in arms, which is not his normal business, and if he is not entitled to accept arms in pawn, the distinction would be very difficult to draw. If you really mean to restrict the use of arms, then this provision is necessary.

Sir F. BANBURY: Do I understand that the Clause prevents the pawnbroker taking in pawn any arms or ammunition, and does it mean that he could get over that by saying, "I will purchase your arms outright," and thus evade the provisions of this Bill?

Major BAIRD: The meaning is, that certain people shall be authorised to deal in arms, and pawnbrokers shall not be amongst them. Circumstances would arise in connection with people against whom this Bill is directed, when it may be convenient for them to divest themselves of arms, and they will do it through a pawnbroker. If the pawnbroker says, "I will buy them," then the object of the Bill would be defeated. The whole object of this Bill is to restrict dealings in arms. If we do not have this Bill, then we shall have to fall back upon the legislation passed before the war, which in practice was found to be inadequate. There was the Gun Licence Act of 1870, under which anybody could go into a Post Office, buy a licence, and then go and buy a firearm.
The Pistols Act of 1903 in relation to a weapon having a barrel not exceeding nine inches in length prevented it being sold to people under eighteen years of age, but anybody over eighteen years of age with a gun licence could purchase any number of pistols, and a weapon with a barrel slightly longer than nine inches did not come within the Act. During the War we had powers under Regulation 40 B of the Defence of the Realm Act, which enabled us to deal with the situation, but that power comes to an end at the end of August, and unless this measure is passed we shall have to fall back upon the two Acts I have mentioned. This Bill follows generally the lines of a Bill drafted after considerable discussion with arms manufacturers in 1911, and I am sure they are the last people who are
desirous to lead to trouble or difficulties by any abuse of their business, and they are prepared to submit to reasonable restrictions.
Since then there has been a still further reason for bringing in this Bill, and that is in connection with the Convention signed in Paris on the 10th September, 1919. It is a convention for the control of the trade in arms and ammunition signed by the representatives of the United States of America, Belgium, Bolivia, the British Empire, China, Cuba, Ecuador, France, Greece, and so on, and it includes practically the countries of the civilised world, who have undertaken to restrict the sale of weapons as far as they can. It applies particularly to the case which the hon. and gallant Member for Central Hull (Lieut.-Commander Kenworthy) referred to, namely, the sale of arms in the Persian Gulf and on the Somali Coast and Arabia, and there is a whole schedule of the places to which the Signatory Powers agree not to export arms. With a view to giving effect to these decisions and the obligations which we have undertaken mutually, it is necessary that we should exercise the control that this Bill provides.

Earl WINTERTON: What the hon. and gallant Member has just said is rather important. May I ask how have we exercised control up to now, and have firearms been going to those countries meanwhile?

Major BAIRD: Up to now we have exercised control under the Defence of the Realm Act. These powers are not as complete as they should be, and this question has to be dealt with internationally. The hon. and gallant Member himself knows how disagreeable it is to be shot at by weapons supplied by your own fellow countrymen in the area of the Persian Gulf, and that is what we wish to discourage. With a view to assisting in that direction we ask the House to accept this Bill.

Sir F. BANBURY: Am I right in assuming that it is not the intention of the Government to prohibit in certain countries the wholesale export of arms?

Major BAIRD: We are bound by that Convention. Section 1 of Article 6 of the Convention describes the countries affected, and, roughly, they are the whole
of the Continent of Africa, with the exception of Algeria, Libya and the Union of South Africa, Transcaucasia, Persia, Gwadar, the Arabian Peninsula and a maritime zone, including the Red Sea, the Gulf of Aden, the Persian Gulf and the Sea of Oman. That is by no means an exhaustive list, but it describes the areas where it is quite superfluous that we should supply weapons.

Sir F. BANBURY: But you can supply them wholesale to other countries?

Major BAIRD: Oh, yes.

Captain BENN: To Abyssinia?

Major BAIRD: I am not prepared to say now, but I will look it up in the Convention. That is the general purpose of the Bill which aims to give effect to the Convention. As regards the details, I trust the House will not think me discourteous if I invite hon. Members to leave the details of these matters to be thrashed out in Committee. We have been in consultation with the arms manufacturers and the Gunmakers' Association, and we have been able to meet their views to a very large extent, although not in every respect. After all, they are the people who will suffer. I do not think anybody will have any pity whatever for the man who finds it impossible to show good reasons for requiring a weapon, and if a man cannot do that, it is not desirable that he should possess one. It is not left entirely to the discretion of the police. If hon. Members will look at Sub-section (4) of Clause 1, they will find that it is provided that:
(4) Any person aggrieved by a refusal of a chief officer of police to grant him a firearm certificate may appeal in accordance with rules made by the Lord Chancellor to a court of summary jurisdiction acting for the petty sessional division in which the applicant resides.
Subject to alterations of details which may be properly dealt with in Committee, I invite the House to consent to the Government having this stage of the Bill now, and I can only repeat the assurance given by my right hon. Friend in moving the Second Reading, that we shall be prepared to consider most favourably any Amendments which may be brought forward.

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: Why has the age been lowered from eighteen to fourteen? The Pistols Act
provided that the age should be eighteen, and now fourteen is proposed.

Major BAIRD: A man cannot get any weapon of any sort or kind unless he is above that age, and he is a fit and proper person. No doubt, many of us may have relatives we might wish to encourage to use guns under the age of eighteen. I do not think, however, that we are entitled to alter the whole system when we know that, under proper restrictions, there really is no danger. The whole object of this Bill is to safeguard both ourselves and our friends from the misuse of weapons which can be traced to insufficient control. If the House will consent to the Government obtaining the powers we ask for under this Bill, then we feel that we shall be able to properly control this matter.

Captain BENN: I feel very much relieved by what the hon. and gallant Member has told us. As far as this Bill regulates the possession of arms by civilians we are in sympathy with it, but some of us take an interest in this matter from a rather wider standpoint than safeguarding those who wish to use shot-guns and start their sport at an early age. I think the hon. and gallant Member is devoting too much attention to that part instead of the more wider aspect of this subject. He says that the Government up to now have been acting under the Defence of the Realm Act, and he made the rather surprising statement that their powers come to an end on the 31st August.

Major BAIRD: Regulation 40B certainly does not come to an end on August 31st, and if the hon. and gallant Member had been present at the Committe upstairs he would have recollected that point.

Captain BENN: I recollect the Debate very well. The Home Office make regulations under 40B, and my recollection is that the powers under the Defence of the Realm Act lay down that those powers do not cease until the War ceases, and the War does not cease until the last treaty has been ratified. That may be many months or years hence. If the Under-Secretary's statement is correct, it would apply not only to 40B, but to the whole of the Act. Some powers I know are contingent. If the general
powers cease on 31st August, it would be a very great relief to many people in this country. We take a particular interest in the application of this Bill to the general sale and distribution of arms by private manufacturers. It raises an important general issue. We understand that in the signing of the Peace Treaty the parties concerned made an international arms agreement, and decided on a mutual abnegation of the right to sell arms in various uncivilised parts of the world. I do not know whether that arrangement is applicable. The hon. and gallant Gentleman has read out the names of some countries concerned. One country which he omitted was Abyssinia, and another was Africa generally with the exception of South Africa. That point does not matter very much, but I understand, any way, that there is this International Convention which prevents the parties thereto from selling arms to the natives. That is a very proper and right thing. Under one of the Articles of the Covenant of the League of Nations the members of the League agree that the manufacture by private enterprise of munitions and implements of war is open to grave objection, and it is provided that the Council shall advise how the evil effects attendant upon such manufacture can be prevented, due regard being had to the necessity of members who are not able to manufacture for themselves. If that means what I take it to mean it involves for each of the parties the necessity of legislation in the several countries for the suppression of the private manufacture and export of arms. We should have liked to have seen in this Bill, not merely a number of regulations, but some serious effort to implement the solemn convention of this country with other countries under the Covenant of the League.
Clause 6 of the Bill provides that no person shall have a weapon designed for the discharge of obnoxious liquid gas. That, I presume, means poison gas and things of that kind. The Clause contains the words "unless by permission of the Army Council." Is it intended to retain poison gas as a permanent part—

Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER (Mr. Whitley): That is a long way from the present Bill. The Minister could not answer that.

Captain BENN: The Army Council and the Air Council and the Admiralty are
the Departments referred to in the Bill. They are able under Clause 6 to grant people permission to have weapons. It would be interesting to know how they intend to exercise that power and what their policy is with regard to such weapons. Particularly is that important in regard to the private manufacture and distribution of arms. Clause 8 of the Bill provides that export from the United Kingdom may be prohibited by Order of a Secretary of State. The Under-Secretary made a statement the accuracy of which, with all respect, I would ask leave to question. He was asked under what power the export of arms was prohibited hitherto. The Under-Secretary replied that the prohibition was under D.O.R.A., and that that Act came to an end very shortly. If my recollection is correct, it is not under D.O.R.A. that the import and export of arms are regulated. Import is regulated under the Customs Consolidation Act, under which the Government specifically has power to control such import. It is not necessary, therefore, to have a Bill for that. The export of arms and of all goods is regulated at present, not under D.O.R.A., but by the exercise of the prerogative. Personally, I think that that is an extremely objectionable way to interfere with trade. I have repeatedly asked the Government, and have been told that the prerogative does cover interference with the export trade in arms. It seems to me that the right hon. Member for the City of London was quite right in saying that it was not necessary to have this Section to prohibit the export of arms. I repeat that we should have liked to have seen in this Bill a much more serious attempt made to make good the pledges in the Covenant of the League of Nations.
Another point I want to mention is in regard to Ireland. This Bill is another step, if only a small step, towards divorcing the administration of the law in Ireland from the popular sentiment of that country. Under the Unlawful Drilling Act of 1819, all drilling is made illegal. It has not to be proclaimed; it is simply made illegal. To become legal it has to be authorised by the Lord Lieutenant and two Justices of the county. There is there some source of local sanction; people in the district concerned are the people called upon to
judge whether or not the procedure is proper. Of course, the Government is not acting under that Act now in Ireland. It has greater powers. Under this Bill the power is exercisable, not by the Lord Lieutenant and two Justices, but by "a Secretary of State." It may be a point on which I am misled by the phraseology. Does that mean by any Secretary of State? Does it mean the Home Secretary, or, say, the First Lord of the Admiralty?

The SECRETARY of STATE for the HOME DEPARTMENT (Mr. Shortt): The First Lord of the Admiralty is not a Secretary of State. If the Home Secretary be not available, it means any other Secretary of State.

Captain BENN: Clause 16 of the Bill, which is the application to Ireland, provides that "a reference to the Chief Secretary shall be substituted for any reference to a Secretary of State." So in place of the slender local sanction and approval which was afforded by the assent of the Lord Lieutenant and two Justices of the county under the Act of 1819, the power now passes to the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland. We find also that the certificate which is granted for three years in this country is to be granted for only one year in Ireland; and that whereas at 14 a boy can have a shot-gun in this country he cannot have one until he is 16 in Ireland. What is the object of that rather irritating differentiation I do not know. Appeals from the decision in Ireland are not to be permitted, so that the first decision given, by a police officer, I think, or by a district magistrate, stands good, and there is no appeal against it. As regards shot-guns, Clause 11 applies only to Great Britain. That is a further restriction on the use of weapons in Ireland. It is quite idle to complain about this trend of legislation, but it is only fair to point out that it is a further step for arming the Government in Ireland with military force where they should seek the real weapon of Government, which is the approval of the people. It is a further step and for that reason and to that extent it is bad. The most disappointing thing about the Bill is that it does not do what it ought to do—continue the good work under Article 8 of the Covenant of the League of Nations and suppress the
private manufacture of all armament and stop the import and export and interchange of armaments, in which, I am sorry to say, the Government is now engaged.

That we consider a serious blot on the Bill.

Question put, "That the Bill be now read a Second time."

The House divided: Ayes, 254; Noes, 6.

Division No. 133.]
AYES.
[5.58 p.m.


Adair, Rear-Admiral Thomas B. S.
Farquharson, Major A. C.
McLaren, Robert (Lanark, Northern)


Addison, Rt. Hon. Dr. C.
Fell, Sir Arthur
Maclean, Neil (Glasgow, Govan)


Allen, Lieut.-Colonel William James
Fildes, Henry
M'Micking, Major Gilbert


Atkey, A. R.
Finney, Samuel
Macpherson, Rt. Hon. James I.


Baird, John Lawrence
Forestier-Walker, L.
Magnus, Sir Philip


Baldwin, Stanley
Forrest, Walter
Mallalieu, F. W.


Balfour, George (Hampstead)
Foxcroft, Captain Charles Talbot
Malone, Major P. B. (Tottenham, S.)


Balfour, Sir R. (Glasgow, Partick)
Fremantle, Lieut.-Colonel Francis E.
Marriott, John Arthur Ransome


Banbury, Rt. Hon. Sir Frederick G.
Galbraith, Samuel
Martin, Captain A. E.


Barnes, Rt. Hon. G. (Glas., Gorbals)
Ganzoni, Captain Francis John C.
Matthews, David


Barnes, Major H. (Newcastle, E.)
Gibbs, Colonel George Abraham
Moles, Thomas


Barrand, A. R.
Gilbert, James Daniel
Mond, Rt. Hon. Sir Alfred M.


Barrie, Charles Coupar
Gilmour, Lieut.-Colonel John
Moreing, Captain Algernon H


Barrie, Hugh Thom (Lon'derry, N.)
Glanville, Harold James
Morison, Thomas Brash


Beauchamp, Sir Edward
Glyn, Major Ralph
Mosley, Oswald


Beckett, Hon. Gervase
Graham, W. (Edinburgh, Central)
Mount, William Arthur


Bell, Lieut.-Col. W. C. H. (Devizes)
Green, Joseph F. (Leicester, W.)
Murchison, C. K.


Bellairs, Commander Carlyon W.
Greenwood, William (Stockport)
Murray, John (Leeds, West)


Benn, Com. Ian H. (Greenwich)
Greig, Colonel James William
Murray, Major William (Dumfries)


Bennett, Thomas Jewell
Gretton, Colonel John
Newman, Colonel J. R. P. (Finchley)


Bethell, Sir John Henry
Gritten, W. G. Howard
Newman, Sir R. H. S. D. L. (Exeter)


Bigland, Alfred
Grundy, T. W.
Nicholl, Commander Sir Edward


Birchall, Major J. Dearman
Guinness, Lieut.-Col. Hon. W. E.
Nicholson, William G. (Petersfield)


Blair, Major Reginald
Hacking, Captain Douglas H.
Norris, Colonel Sir Henry G.


Blake, Sir Francis Douglas
Hall, Rr-Adml Sir W. (Liv'p'1,W.D'by)
Norton-Griffiths, Lieut.-Col. Sir John


Boscawen, Rt. Hon. Sir A. Griffith-
Hanna, George Boyle
Oman, Charles William C.


Bowerman, Rt. Hon. Charles W.
Harmsworth, Hon. E. C. (Kent)
O'Neill, Major Hon. Robert W. H.


Bowyer, Captain G. E. W.
Hartshorn, Vernon
Palmer, Charles Frederick (Wrekin)


Breese, Major Charles E.
Haslam, Lewis
Parker, James


Brittain, Sir Harry
Hayday, Arthur
Parry, Lieut.-Colonel Thomas Henry


Britton, G. B.
Hayward, Major Evan
Peel, Lieut.-Col. R. F. (Woodbridge)


Brown, Captain D. C.
Henderson, Major V. L. (Tradeston)
Peel, Col. Hon. S. (Uxbridge, Mddx.)


Brown, James (Ayr and Bute)
Hennessy, Major J. R. G.
Perkins, Walter Frank


Buckley, Lieut.-Colonel A.
Henry, Denis S. (Londonderry, S.)
Perring, William George


Bull, Rt. Hon. Sir William James
Herbert, Denis (Hertford, Watford)
Pilditch, Sir Philip


Burdon, Colonel Rowland
Hilder, Lieut.-Colonel Frank
Pinkham, Lieut.-Colonel Charles


Burn, Col. C. R. (Devon, Torquay)
Hinds, John
Pratt, John William


Butcher, Sir John George
Hoare, Lieut.-Colonel Sir S. J. G.
Prescott, Major W. H.


Campbell, J. D. G.
Hodge, Rt. Hon. John
Pulley, Charles Thornton


Campion, Lieut.-Colonel W. R.
Holbrook, Sir Arthur Richard
Purchase, H G.


Cape, Thomas
Holmes, J. Stanley
Raeburn, Sir William H.


Carew, Charles Robert S.
Hope, H. (Stirling & Cl'ckm'nn'n, W.)
Ramsden, G. T.


Carter, W. (Nottingham, Mansfield)
Hope, James F. (Sheffield, Central)
Rankin, Captain James S.


Casey, T. W.
Hope, Lt.-Col. Sir J. A. (Midlothian)
Ratcliffe, Henry Butler


Cautley, Henry S.
Hopkins, John W. W.
Raw, Lieutenant-Colonel N.


Cayzer, Major Herbert Robin
Hopkinson, A. (Lancaster, Mossley)
Rawlinson, John Frederick Peel


Cecil, Rt. Hon. Lord H. (Ox. Univ.)
Hotchkin, Captain Stafford Vere
Rees, Capt. J. Tudor- (Barnstaple)


Child, Lieut.-Colonel Sir Hill
Howard, Major S. G.
Richardson, Alexander (Gravesend)


Clay, Lieut.-Colonel H H. Spender
Hunter, General Sir A. (Lancaster)
Richardson, R. (Houghton-le-Spring)


Clynes, Rt. Hon. J. R.
Hunter-Weston, Lieut.-Gen. Sir A. G.
Roberts, Rt. Hon. G. H. (Norwich)


Coats, Sir Stuart
Hurst, Lieut.-Colonel Gerald B.
Roberts, Sir S.(Sheffield, Ecclesall)


Cobb, Sir Cyril
Inskip, Thomas Walker H.
Robertson, John


Cohen, Major J. Brunel
Jackson, Lieut.-Colonel Hon. F. S.
Robinson, S.(Brecon and Radnor)


Conway, Sir W. Martin
James, Lieut.-Colonel Hon. Cuthbert
Roundell, Colonel R. F.


Coote, Colin Reith (Isle of Ely)
Jesson, C.
Royce, William Stapleton


Coote, William Tyrone, South)
Jodrell, Neville Paul
Rutherford, Colonel Sir J. (Darwen)


Cope, Major Wm.
Johnstone, Joseph
Samuel, A. M. (Surrey, Farnham)


Cowan, D. M. (Scottish Universities)
Jones, Sir Evan (Pembroke)
Sassoon, Sir Philip Albert Gustave D.


Curzon, Commander Viscount
Jones, G. W. H. (Stoke Newington)
Scott, Sir Samuel (St. Marylebone)


Dalziel, Sir D. (Lambeth, Brixton)
Kellaway, Frederick George
Seager, Sir William


Davidson, Major-General Sir J. H.
Kenyon, Barnet
Seely, Major-General Rt. Hon. John


Davies, Alfred Thomas (Lincoln)
Kerr-Smiley, Major Peter Kerr
Shaw, Hon. Alex. (Kilmarnock)


Davison, Sir W. H. (Kensington, S.)
Kidd, James
Short, Alfred (Wednesbury)


Dawes, Commander
Kiley, James D.
Shortt, Rt. Hon. E. (N'castle-on-T.)


Dean, Lieut.-Commander P. T.
Lawson, John J.
Sitch, Charles H.


Denison-Pender, John C.
Lewis, Rt. Hon. J. H. (Univ., Wales)
Smith, Sir Allan M. (Croydon, South)


Donnelly, P.
Lewis. T. A. (Glam., Pontypridd)
Smith, W. R. (Wellingborough)


Duncannon, Viscount
Lindsay, William Arthur
Stanley, Major H. G. (Preston)


Edge, Captain William
Locker-Lampson, G. (Wood Green)
Stanton, Charles B.


Edwards, C. (Monmouth, Bedwellty)
Lorden, John William
Stewart, Gershom


Edwards, Major J. (Aberavon)
Lyle-Samuel, Alexander
Strauss, Edward Anthony


Elliot, Capt. Walter E. (Lanark)
Lynn, R. J.
Sturrock, J. Leng


Elliott, Lt.-Col. Sir G. (Islinoton, W.)
M'Donald, Dr. Bouverie F. P.
Sugden, W. H.


Eyres-Monsell, Commander B. M.
Macdonald, Rt. Hon. John Murray
Sutherland, Sir William


Falle, Major Sir Bertram G.
M'Guffin, Samuel
Talbot, G. A. (Hemel Hempstead)


Taylor, J.
Warner, Sir T. Courtenay T.
Wilson-Fox, Henry


Terrell, George (Wilts, Chippenham)
Warren, Lieut.-Col. Sir Alfred H.
Winterton, Major Earl


Terrell, Captain R. (Oxford, Henley)
Weston, Colonel John W.
Wood, Sir H. K. (Woolwich, West)


Thomson, Sir W. Mitchell- (Maryhill)
Wheler, Lieut.-Colonel C. H.
Wood, Sir J. (Stalybridge & Hyde)


Tickler, Thomas George
Wignall, James
Wood, Major M. M. (Aberdeen, C.)


Townley, Maximilian G.
Wild, Sir Ernest Edward
Yate, Colonel Charles Edward


Tryon, Major George Clement
Williams, Col. Sir R. (Dorset, W.)
Young, Lieut.-Com. E. H (Norwich)


Turton, E. R.
Wills, Lieut.-Colonel Sir Gilbert



Walsh, Stephen (Lancaster, Ince)
Wilson, Daniel M. (Down, West)
TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—


Walters, Sir John Tudor
Wilson, Rt. Hon. J. W. (Stourbridge)
Lord E. Talbot and Mr. Dudley Ward.


Ward, Col. L. (Kingston-upon-Hull)
Wilson, W. Tyson (Westhoughton)



NOES.


Graham, D. M. (Lanark, Hamilton)
Morgan, Major D. Watts
TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—


Hogge, James Myles
Rose, Frank H.
Colonel Wedgwood and Lieut.-


Malone, Lieut.-Col. C. L. (Leyton, E.)
Swan, J. E.
Commander Kenworthy.


Resolutions agreed to.

Motion made, and Question, "That the Bill be committed to a Committee of the Whole House," put, and negatived. [Lieut.-Commander Kenworthy.]

Orders of the Day — ECCLESIASTICAL TITHE RENT-CHARGE (RATES) BILL.

As amended (in the Standing Committee) considered.

CLAUSE 1.—(Partial relief of ecclesiastical tithe rentcharge farm rates.)

1.—(1) The owner of tithe rentcharge attached to an ecclesiastical corporation or benefice shall not he liable to pay, in respect of any rate made on or after the first day of April, nineteen hundred and twenty, and before the first day of January, nineteen hundred and twenty-six, which is assessed on him as owner of that tithe rentcharge, an amount in excess of such an amount as would have been payable by him if the rate had been made at such amount in the pound as is equal to the amount in the pound (to be ascertained in accordance with the rules set out in the Schedule to this Act) at which the corresponding rate was made in the year nineteen hundred and eighteen, and the excess shall be deemed to be irrecoverable. Where the owner of tithe rentcharge attached to a benefice, before payment of the amount payable by him in respect of any such rate as aforesaid, produces to the collector of the rate a certificate from the Inspector of Taxes that the owner has proved in manner prescribed by the Income Tax Act, 1918, that his total income from all sources for the year of assessment in which the last preceding rate for the same purpose was made, estimated in accordance with the provisions of that Act, does not exceed three hundred pounds, or, if it exceeds that sum, does not exceed five hundred pounds, the owner shall be entitled to such exemption or relief in respect of such rate as follows, that is to say: if the total income from all sources does not exceed three hundred pounds the owner shall be exempt from the rate, and if it exceeds that sum but
does not exceed five hundred pounds the owner shall be allowed an abatement of one-half of the amount which would otherwise be payable by him in respect of the rate having regard to the preceding Sub-section; and the amount of any relief or abatement in respect of a rate given by this Section shall be deemed to be irrecoverable.

Nothing in this Act shall affect the allowance to be made in respect of rates in the assessment of tithe rentcharge for any rate or tax.

(2) In this Act the expression "ecclesiastical corporation" has the same meaning as in the Episcopal and Capitular Estates Act, 1851; the expressions "benefice" and "owner of tithe rentcharge" and "tithe rentcharge" have the same meanings as in the Tithe Rentcharge (Rates) Act, 1899; and the expression "rate" means a rate the proceeds of which are applicable to public local purposes and which is leviable on the basis of an assessment in respect of the yearly value of property.

Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER: The Amendments standing on the Paper in the names of the hon. Member for Cambridge University (Mr. Rawlinson), and the hon. Member for Newbury (Mr. Mount), are out of order, as they propose an increased charge on the rates, which cannot possibly be done by Amendment on Report stage of a Bill.

Mr. RAWLINSON: My Amendment merely seeks to exempt certain persons in the same way as exemption is given in a Finance Bill, and that does not necessarily increase the charge.

Sir F. BANBURY: The hon. Gentleman, as well as seeking to exempt certain people, endeavours to include certain other people, and this being the Report stage, it is quite impossible to do so.

Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER: Neither on a Finance Bill nor on any other Bill can a fresh charge on the rates be imposed on the Report stage.

Lord H. CECIL: But this is a proposal to exempt certain people from paying a charge.

Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER: Yes, but you obviously increase the charge on those who remain, and have to pay.

The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the BOARD of AGRICULTURE (Sir Arthur Boscawen): I beg to move, in Sub-section (1), to leave out the words
certificate from the Inspector of Taxes that the owner has proved in manner prescribed by the Income Tax Act, 1918, that his total income from all sources for the year of assessment in which the last preceding rate for the same purpose was made, estimated in accordance with the provisions of that Act, does not exceed three hundred pounds, or, if it exceeds that sum, does not exceed five hundred pounds, the owner shall be entitled to such exemption or relief in respect of such rate as follows, that is to say: if the total income from all sources does not exceed three hundred pounds the owner shall be exempt from the rate, and if it exceeds that sum but does
and to insert instead thereof the words
statutory declaration made by him in a form prescribed by the Minister of Health showing that his total income from all sources for the year ending on the fifth day of April preceding the date at which the rate was made, estimated in accordance with the provisions of the income Tax Acts, did not exceed three hundred pounds, or, if it exceeded that sum, did not exceed five hundred pounds, the owner shall be entitled to such relief or abatement in respect of such rate as follows, that is to say: if the total income from all sources did not exceed three hundred pounds the owner shall not be liable to any payment in respect of the rate, and if it exceeded that sum, but did".
I accepted an Amendment in Committee exempting altogether from rate on tithe rentcharge those whose incomes did not exceed £300, and also dealing with incomes which did not exceed £500. I did not accept the machinery of that Amendment, and on investigation I find that it is impossible to arrange that the Inspector of Taxes should give the necessary certificate, and therefore I have substituted a statutory declaration.

Lieut.-Colonel Sir SAMUEL HOARE: The Amendment carries out the spirit of the undertaking given in Standing Committee, though I am sorry the machinery then proposed could not be carried out.

Amendment agreed to.

Further Amendments made: In Subsection (1) leave out the word "Sub-
section" ["the preceding Sub-section"] and insert instead thereof the word "provisions."

After the word "irrecoverable" insert the words "A statutory declaration made for the purpose of this Section shall be exempt from stamp duty."—[Sir A. Boscawen.]

Sir A. BOSCAWEN: I beg to move at the end of Sub-section (1) to insert the following new Sub-section:
(2) Any amount paid by the owner of tithe rentcharge in respect of any rate to which this Act applies in excess of the amount which he is by virtue of this Act liable to pay shall be recoverable on demand made within six months after the passing of this Act as a debt due to him by the collector of the rate, and such amount shall be so recoverable notwithstanding that the statutory declaration required by this Act to entitle the owner to exemption or relief was not produced to the collector of the rate before payment of the rate if such declaration is so produced on or before the demand for repayment.
The Bill as drafted arranges that this concession in the matter of the payment of rates is to date from the 1st April of this year. Rates are made about that date, and are payable now, and clergy are being actually pressed to pay those rates. Having given an assurance that they would have immediate relief, it would be obviously unfair that they should not have the benefit of this date. In many cases they cannot refuse to pay the rates without running the risk of prosecution. This Amendment is with the view to arranging that they may recover, after the passing of this Act, any excess amount they have paid. That will make it easier for them and will relieve what is at the present moment a really rather hard case.

Sir S. HOARE: I should have thought that the simpler way would have been for the Minister of Health to have given an instruction to the rate collectors that they should not collect these rates at all. I have had several letters from clergymen saying that they are put into great difficulty in having to pay rates which under the Amendment of the right hon. Gentleman they will eventually recover. At the same time they are very hard up, and they have to find this money, which puts them into great difficulties. I shall be very glad if in addition to the Amendment some kind of instruction could be given to the rate collectors not to press these demands in the circumstances, and
I hope my right hon. Friend will use his influence with the Minister of Health to take some such action as that.

Sir A. BOSCAWEN: I have already done what I can in this matter, and if this Bill had gone through earlier I think we might have held up the collection in the way suggested, but considerable delay has taken place, for which I am not responsible, and the rate collectors are bound to carry out their duties. They cannot legally refuse to collect this money. As a matter of fact, I believe a notice was issued telling them not to press the matter unduly, and I believe that has been carried out in some cases. In order to make the matter perfectly clear, it is necessary that we should have this Amendment.

Captain W. BENN: How long will this Bill take before it becomes an Act? As it is already on the Report stage, is it necessary to have an arrangement by which a man is forced to pay rates and then to go and get the money back? Surely with the full powers possessed by the Minister of Health a short delay in the collection could be arranged for, because this Bill must become law in a very few days' time.

Sir A. BOSCAWEN: I do not think it can be done. I have considered this very carefully and submitted this Amendment to a number of representative clergy. My hon. and gallant Friend knows very well that this Bill has to go to another place, and when it is through there it has to wait for the Royal Commission in order to get the Royal Assent, so that it may very well be some weeks still before it becomes law, added to which some of the clergy have already paid their rates.

Sir S. HOARE: Could the right hon. Gentleman make more widely known the fact that the rate collectors need not press on this matter? My correspondence shows that it is not very widely known.

Sir A. BOSCAWEN: I will make representations to the Ministry of Health.

Sir F. BANBURY: I am not certain that there is anything in this point, but I would like to ask your ruling on it, Sir. This Amendment would enable the tithe owner to avoid paying a certain amount of rates, or rather to recover a certain amount of rates which he has already paid, and that will necessitate
somebody else paying the amount so recovered. Under those circumstances, I am not sure whether that might not be held to be imposing a charge upon the rates, and if that is so, this being the Report stage, no charge can be imposed either upon the rates or taxes.

Mr. SPEAKER: The House has already decided that this charge is not to fall upon the ecclesiastical tithe owners. This is only a matter of machinery, applying the decision of the House to the existing state of affairs.

Captain W. BENN: This Amendment, I understand, is moved in order to enable certain sums of money to be repaid, and presumably if they are repaid they will have to be made good out of the general rates, and therefore will it not impose some additional charge?

Sir A. BOSCAWEN: The Bill already says that the owner of a tithe rent charge shall not be liable to pay in respect of any rate made on or after the first day of April, and, as you, Sir, have already said, that has been decided. This is merely machinery whereby money which it was not intended by the Bill should be paid, but which has been paid, should be recoverable.

Major BARNES: As hon. Members know, I am strongly opposed to the principle of this Bill, but the House having decided to give this relief, it seems to me that we should not do anything that appears to be vexatious or hampering. If they are going to get the benefit of these rates it seems absurd for them to have to pay the rates and then go to the trouble of getting them back again. I am not suggesting that this Amendment should not go on, but I think some provision might be made which would suspend the payment of the remainder of the rates until these statutory declarations are ready. I say this not in any sense going back upon my views on the principle of the Bill.

Amendment agreed to.

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Bill be now read the Third time."—[Sir A. Boscawen.]

Mr. RAWLINSON: I confess to a feeling of great disappointment with this Bill. As far as it goes it is all right, but it is the attempt of the Government to deal with a grievance which has been
admitted on all hands for a large number of years. I have here speeches by Mr. Gladstone and the present First Lord of the Admiralty and others admitting absolutely clearly the gross injustice on the clergy in being rated as they are upon tithe rentcharge, which in effect is being rated upon their ordinary income. It has been pointed out time after time that undoubtedly it came about by a mistaken view of the law taken many years ago. Originally the tithe which became part of a parson's income was merely rateable as personal property, rateable as income which came within the particular parish. By a mistake which occurred many years ago that was confused with the tithe which belongs to other corporations and other ecclesiastical bodies. That, as I say, has been recognised by Mr. Gladstone and by successive generations of statesmen, the excuse as a rule being given that it would be difficult to make a change in one part of the rating system without making a change in the whole system of rating. That was pointed out in 1899 by the Select Committee which went into the matter then; some little remission was given, but at a much later date than that, namely, in this present year, it was admitted in another place by Lord Astor for the Government that the Government desired to say that a case for relief of clerical tithe owners had been made out. An opportunity for giving relief has arisen in this way. By an Act of 1918 there was done something which operated most hardly on the tithe owners. I was present when the Bill was introduced, and I had the privilege on two cocasions of speaking against it and pointing out what a great injustice was being done to the tithe owners, but unforunately I was not supported.
Tithe rentcharge has always varied according to the price of corn; if corn was low the amount of the tithe was low, and if corn was high the amount of the tithe was high. Further, when corn is low the general cost of living is low, and when corn is high the general cost of living goes up at once, with the result that for years and years the tithe owner was getting a very small portion of his tithe. When the War came the tithe went up, and Lord Ernle, Mr. Prothero as he was then, for certain reasons which seemed good to the Government at that
time, thought it highly desirable to limit the price to which the tithe could go up. He therefore brought in a Bill, which was assented to by the archbishops or bishops of the time. If they thoroughly understood what they were doing, it was an act of great patriotism on their part, but if, on the other hand, they did not understand the effect of the Bill, equally it is a matter which has operated very harshly upon those affected. The compromise was that the amount of the tithe should remain at 109 for the seven years for which the Act is effective. The tithe has already gone up far in excess of that, to something like 140, and it may go much higher, and therefore the tithe owners are suffering very greatly indeed. In regard to the technical point that by relieving them of these rates the remaining ratepayers will have a further burden imposed upon them, in a large number of cases the people on whom a slightly excessive rate may be put are the tithe payers themselves who, instead of paying 140, as they ought to be at the present time, are only paying 109. This Bill only deals with the temporary state of affairs, for it gives no relief after 1926, the date on which the Act expires, and it gives this comparatively small relief. There certainly should be a greater concession made in dealing with this injustice than has been given by this Bill. We have been unable to move the suggested alterations which I put on the Notice Paper for this stage to assist the tithe owners, but I am bound to say that both in amount and in regard to the tithe owners who should be affected, further concessions most certainly should be made, and I can only hope, after the statement made in the other House by Lord Astor, that the Noble Lord will see fit to extend the relief given by this Bill when it reaches the other House.

Major BARNES: I do not rise to continue my opposition to this Bill, but there has been a change in the situation since we had the Second Reading, and I think, perhaps, the Minister in charge might take this opportunity to tell us how far the change in the situation will affect dealing with this question of tithe. The hon. and learned Member who has just spoken gave a connected account of the origin of this Bill. It has arisen through the passage of the Tithe Act, 1918. I thoroughly agree with him that
that Act did inflict injustice on the clergy. That Tithe Act, in its turn, arose out of the Corn Production Act, which was introduced as a temporary measure. The Tithe Act following it dealt with tithe for a certain period, and the Bill here is to reduce temporarily the rates payable in respect of tithe rent-charge. I think there is a change in the situation brought about by the introduction of the Agriculture Bill, which makes the provisions of the Corn Production Act permanent. That being so, it does seem to raise the question of what the Government is going to do with regard to the whole of this question of the Tithe Act of 1918, and the present position dealing with rates. Perhaps, therefore, the right hon. Gentleman will tell us whether the Government have any intentions with respect to the Tithe Act in the Agriculture Bill, which is expected to result in very great benefit to the agricultural industry, and, incidentally, I believe, to the tithe-payer, because I believe when that Bill was before the House the right hon. Gentleman said that the real trouble in farming in this country was that land was under-rented—and I am not disposed to disagree with that—and that it was to the real interests of farming that rents must be got up, and one of the results of the Bill is expected to be that rents will rise. If that is so, that is going to improve the position of the tithe-payer, and if the position of the tithe-payer is improved, it does seem to me that the position of the tithe-owner should not be left where it is now by reason of the Tithe Act of 1918.
Therefore, the question I want to ask the right hon. Gentleman is whether the Government consider the passage of the Agriculture Bill should have any effect at all upon this legislation with regard to tithe, and whether as a corollary to that Bill we may expect a measure brought in to repeal the Tithe Act of 1918? The Government has time to repeal a good many measures, and perhaps they may find time to repeal the Tithe Act of 1918. I am sure my hon. and learned Friend (Mr. Rawlinson) would agree with me that that would only be a proper consequence of the passage of the Agriculture Bill. I do not know whether the right hon. Gentleman expects that the very deserving section which is getting some little measure of relief by this Bill is content. So far as communications which I have received go, they do not regard
this Bill as giving the relief to which they are entitled, or as in any measurable degree removing the hardships from which they are suffering by the Act of 1918, and I suggest that if the position of the tithe-payer is going to be improved by the Agriculture Bill, the Government ought to take into consideration the position of the tithe-owner, and ought to give some reassurance to that class, and tell them that the benefits which the Government are intending to confer upon agriculture are not going to be confined to the labourer, farmer and tithe-payer, but that the tithe-owner is going to get his right and proper share.

Sir F. BANBURY: My hon. and learned Friend gave us a very interesting resumé of what took place in 1918 on the Tithe Bill of that date, and he said it was agreed to by the archbishops and bishops, but that he was not sure that they had been legally advised, and knew what they were doing. I do not know whether he intends to say that if you do not have legal advice you do not know what you are doing, because that might be taken as the meaning of my hon. and learned Friend's remarks. I remember that Act perfectly well. I am always in favour of the maintenance of contracts whoever makes them, and whatever the results are, and if I had been assured that the clergy had been opposed to the Bill, I do not know that I should have supported it. But, as a matter of fact—whether they were unfortunate in their advice or not, I do not know—we were assured that the clergy approved of the Bill.

Mr. RAWLINSON: Not the clergy. I assure my right hon. Friend to the contrary. If he had listened to my speech on that occasion with the same zeal as he has to my speech on this occasion, he would know that I never said the clergy approved of it. It was Mr. Prothero.

Sir F. BANBURY: I did not say that my hon. and learned Friend said the clergy approved of it, but the Government assured us, on the passing of the Bill, that the clergy were not opposed to it, and the clergy did not oppose. I do not think my hon. and learned Friend opposed it. Possibly there are hard cases with regard to the clergy, but it must be remembered they received a very large increment. I know a certain tithe-owner who, at the beginning of the War, was paid about £500 in tithe, and now is paid
£900, and probably every other tithe-owner is in the same position. The hon. and gallant Member who has just spoken seemed to be under the impression that every tenant farmer is going to pay his landlord a higher rent. I can assure him that is not so. During the War, in the majority of cases, rents were not raised at all, but during the last year there has been very slight increases in rent. I have not found any desire on the part of tenants to press a larger rent on their landlord. But the point I wish to make is this, that the people who have to pay the tithe-owner are not the people who will benefit by the rise in the price of corn, because the late Lord Salisbury placed that burden, 40 years ago, upon the landlord. The tenant farmer at that time took very great objection to the payment of tithe, and the late Lord Salisbury, with great astuteness, put it upon the landlord, and, being a patriotic gentleman in 99 cases out of 100, he paid the tithe and said nothing.
But now it is very hard on the landlord, considering the great increase in the cost of repairs, that this very large increase in the rates should be put upon him from which he gets no advantage. I am not saying he ought to repudiate his contract, but there are hard cases, and when we remember the tithe has increased 40 per cent., if not 50 per cent., I do not think it is quite fair to make out that the clergy are in such an extremely bad position. On the contrary, I am rather sorry that the Government have exempted people whose income is not more than £300 a year from paying rates at all. Tithe is a part of the produce of the land, and rates were paid upon the land, and when part of the tithe was taken away from the owner of the land or the farmer, and given to somebody else, a portion of the rates were also imposed on the person who received the tithe. That may have been right or it may have been wrong, but it has been going on for a great number of years, and I rather fail to see the argument on the part of the clergy that they should be relieved from that which every other ratepayer has to pay. Under those circumstances, I strongly regret that the Bill goes so far as it does.

Major BIRCHALL: I desire to say one or two words in favour of the Third Reading of this Bill. In regard to what has been said by the two previous
speakers, I think the 1918 Bill was accepted by the bishops, and somewhat tacitly, at any rate, by the clergy in a natural generosity, having failed to realise the enormous increase in prices and rates. Had those two things not occurred, I venture to think we should not have been under the necessity to-day of doing this act of justice to the clergy. The injustice of the present situation was brought home to me a short time ago by a case I came across of an incumbent who received the same salary as I receive as a Member of Parliament. In his case, and in my case, we each pay Income Tax of £100 on the £400, and there my liabilities to the State cease. But his liabilities, in addition to the £100, include £75, which he has to pay to the local rates, so that, while I receive £300, he only receives £225 out of the £400. I think everybody must admit that in that way a great injustice is being done. The salary in both cases was for service rendered, and in each case it was earned income.
There are only two points on which I wish the Minister in charge of the Bill had been able to meet us. I wish he had been able to go the whole way. This Bill roughly will mean about 85 per cent. of the rates payable on tithe will not be paid by the tithe-owning clergy. It will mean a good deal of confusion. A certain number will not know to what benefit they are entitled, whereas if they could be exempted from the whole of their rates I think the charge would have been very little extra on the public, and a much simpler Bill would have resulted. If that is impossible, I wish the right hon. Gentleman had stereotyped not the poundage which the clergy had to pay in 1918, but the actual amount of rates paid in that year, so that every incumbent would know exactly what his liability was. In conclusion I should like to express what I feel sure is the opinion of the great majority of the clergy, who cannot express their thanks themselves, because they are one of three remaining classes of people who are not directly represented in the House of Commons. The great majority of them feel really grateful not only for the way in which the Bill has been received by the House, almost unanimously, and especially by those who do not agree with the Church of England in its beliefs, but they are especially grateful to the Minister who has been in charge of this Bill, and who knows and
appreciates the personal difficulties under which the clergy have suffered. To him is due this tardy justice which we are now getting.

Lord HUGH CECIL: Just one word in reply to what has fallen from my right hon. Friend the Member for the City of London. My right hon. Friend, I think, assumed an attitude of which the late Shylock would have been ashamed. The late Shylock, after all, only asked for the pound of flesh to which he was by law entitled. My right hon. Friend asks for a pound of flesh to which, I think, he could certainly give no title whatever, Tithe was commuted upon the basis of a particular scale, but for a great number of years tithe was always below par. Latterly it was very much below par indeed, and showed a very considerable falling off. Then, owing to the operation of the rise in prices during the War, it began to rise, and Parliament which had never done anything to relieve the clergy for having made their unfortunate bargain so long as it told against the clergy, now intervened. I think it was an inequitable proceeding, inequitable in substance and tactless in manner. The Government of the day went not to the clergy who derived their incomes from the tithe, but to the bishops, who got not one penny from tithe, whose property it was not and who had no sort of right to give it away. The bishops were then, as they often are, very much afraid of public opinion, for it was in those days when accusations of profiteering went about, and they were afraid of being so accused, and they did not want the clergy to be accused of being profiteers either. They made a bargain which they had no right to make with the property of the clergy, and favoured the object of the Government in passing the Bill, depriving the clergy, who had long suffered from diminution of tithe, in the way that has been described. I think that was a most improper thing to do, and aggravated the normal grievance from which the clergy had suffered so long in paying tithes on their professional income.

Sir F. BANBURY: I am always in favour of maintaining a bargain. If I had understood the clergy were against that bargain I should have voted against it, and left it undisturbed. I cannot be responsible for the mistake of the bishops.

Lord H. CECIL: The point is that it was not for the bishops to go into the bargain. It was not their province. What would the right hon. Baronet say if someone went to his colleague in the representation of the City of London and proposed to him to take a certain quantity of the property of the right hon. Baronet, and the right hon. Gentleman the Lord President of the Council had said, "I agree," saying he thought it was a very good bargain.

Sir F. BANBURY: My right hon. Friend is not my superior officer!

Lord H. CECIL: No, but he is just as little connected with your property as the bishops were connected with the property of the clergy. Therefore I think hon. Members will see it was improper and aggravated the grievance. This is not a perfect remedy. These Bills very seldom are perfect remedies; but I think the clergy will be grateful for this comparatively small mercy.

Sir S. HOARE: The grievance has been remedied up to such a point that it seems to me a matter of regret that it has not been remedied altogether. With the Amendments which have been accepted in the Standing Committee, I suppose the whole amount that will henceforth be paid in rates by the clergy will not amount to £100,000 per year.

Sir A. BOSCAWEN: On tithe?

Sir S. HOARE: On tithe. This is a very small amount when it is remembered that the total agricultural rates amount to £20,000,000. In view of that it does seem to me to be rather niggling with the question to leave this small amount, from the point of view of the Exchequer, but a very serious amount from the point of view of the poorer clergy, and not to remedy the grievance altogether. I know my right hon. Friend himself has been very sympathetic to the cause of the clergy. He has tried to meet us and has done so in certain directions. At the same time I feel sure that he will agree when I say that the grievance is not remedied. These deserving clergy are the only class of the community which will continue to pay rates on their professional incomes. They have a grievance, and that will go on, and they will go on agitating until the whole of that grievance is removed. On that account
cannot help taking this opportunity to say that I think the Government would have done far better to have dealt with the whole grievance and to have removed it, thereby stopping the agitation which will certainly continue, and owing to the strength of the grievance will certainly end in complete success, and in the removal of the grievance altogether. Having said that, I wish to thank the right hon. Gentleman himself for the manner in which he has dealt with the question both in the Standing Committee and in the House to-day.

Mr. MARRIOTT: I join with my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for the University of Cambridge in expressing the hope that in another place this Bill will be so far enlarged as to meet the real grievances of the clergy. I gratefully recognise that this Bill goes a very considerable way towards remedying grievances, and I think we shall be very grateful, those of us who speak on behalf of a considerable number of the clergy, to the Government for the way in which they have met various proposals on this Bill. I none the less regret that they have not seized this opportunity to go further. After all, it may not recur. It is all very well for the hon. and gallant Gentleman to say that the clergy will agitate. I am inclined to think that the clergy are the last body in the country to agitate, and it is for this House of Commons and Parliament as a whole to remedy an admitted grievance—for it is not denied that it exists. The clergy have for many years past been suffering from a reduction of the tithe below the normal. This was owing to economic causes over which no one had any control. These economic causes began to operate in the other direction. The moment these causes began to operate in favour of the clergy, Parliament intervened to deprive the clergy of the advantage which they would otherwise have obtained. Glad as I am that this Bill is about to go through this House, grateful as I am to the Government for the measure, I still regret that they have not taken the opportunity of remedying the whole grievance, and I hope it will be remedied elsewhere.

Sir A. BOSCAWEN: One word before this Bill is finally disposed of here.
First of all, I want to thank my hon. Friends for the kind expressions they have used. I have endeavoured to enlarge the Bill so as to meet all the harder cases, and I can only say that I regret that it has been impossible to deal with the whole matter in a final and comprehensive manner. As I pointed out before, we are really dealing with a grievance which has been seriously aggravated in consequence of the Act of 1918. My hon. and learned Friend the Member for Cambridge University, and others, have based their case for Amendment entirely on the effect of that Act. That is a temporary Act. This is a temporary Act dealing specially with a grievance which has arisen in consequence of the first Act, and for the period during which that Act will be in operation. I fully agree that the matter will have to be dealt with in a comprehensive manner; but that will arise when the Government deals with the incidence of rating generally. After all, I do not think you can, having regard to the grievances of other classes of ratepayers, deal with this matter finally and on a permanent basis unless you deal with the whole question. My hon. Friend behind me (Mr. Marriott) said the opportunity will not recur. I venture to think that an opportunity is bound to recur.

Mr. MARRIOTT: I hope it will.

Sir A. BOSCAWEN: For this simple reason: the Act of 1918 comes to an end in 1926. So does this Act. It will then be absolutely necessary to decide what is to be the future position. Therefore I think the opportunity is bound to recur. Meantime, this is merely a temporary measure of relief, as a natural consequence of what was done in 1918. I can only express the hope that the relief given will be found to be substantial, especially in the case of the really poorest clergy who are specially dealt with.

Orders of the Day — IMPERIAL WAR MUSEUM BILL.

Not amended (in the Standing Committee), considered.

CLAUSE 3.—(Vesting in Board of Objects given to, acquired for, or transferred to Museum.)

(2) Where it appears to the Trustees of the British Museum, the Trustees of the National Gallery, or the Board of Education, that any pictures or objects vested in them respectively would more properly form part of the Museum, the Trustees of the British Museum, the Trustees of the National Gallery, or the Board of Education, as the case may be, may, with the consent of the Treasury, transfer those pictures or objects to the Museum, and any pictures or objects so transferred shall vest in the Board and be held by the Board for the purposes of the Museum.

The FIRST COMMISSIONER of WORKS (Sir A. Mond): I beg to move at the end of Sub-section (2) to insert the words

The Trustees of the British Museum, the Trustees of the National Gallery, or the Board of Education may at any time, and on such terms, and subject to such conditions as they think fit, lend to the Museum any pictures or other objects vested in them respectively.

The object of the Amendment is purely one of machinery.

Amendment agreed to.

Orders of the Day — SCHEDULE.

Constitution and Proceedings of Board of Trustees.

(1) The Board shall consist of a President and twenty-four other members, of whom seventeen shall be appointed members and seven ex-officio members.

The ex-officio members shall consist of the following persons:

The First Commissioner of Works;
The Principal Librarian of the British Museum;
The High Commissioner for the Commonwealth of Australia;
The High Commissioner for the Dominion of Canada;
The High Commissioner for the Dominion of New Zealand;
The High Commissioner for the Union of South Africa;
The High Commissioner for Newfoundland.

Amendment made: In paragraph (1) after the word "The" ["The Principal Librarian of the British Museum"] insert the words "Director and."—[Sir A. Mond.]

Sir A. MOND: I beg to move, to leave out the words "Commonwealth of Aus-
tralia" and to insert instead thereof "Dominion of Canada."

Lieut. - Commander KENWORTHY: May we have an explanation of this Amendment?

Sir A. MOND: In the drafting of the Bill it was overlooked that the Dominion of Canada, as being our latest Dominion, has precedence. My attention being directed to that fact, we are altering the wording accordingly.

Amendment agreed to.

Further Amendment made: Leave out "Dominion of Canada" ["the High Commissioner for the Dominion of Canada"] and insert "Commonwealth of Australia."․[Sir A. Mond.]

Motion made and Question proposed, "That the Bill be now lead the Third time."

7.0 P.M.

Lieut. - Commander KENWORTHY: On the occasion of the Second Reading I stated my objections to the setting up of this War Museum, and I do not propose to go over them again, but those particular objections have been very much strengthened by events since. I said then that I looked upon the whole, object of this Museum as mischievous, as intended simply to foster a spirit which we all hope will die out, and die out quickly. Since then we have had London placarded with posters, at I do not know at what expense, inviting people to come and see this museum and setting it out in the most glowing terms. A public holiday has been made of the opening ceremony—I do not wish in any way to complain of the fact that a very high personage opened it—and it has been boomed in the Press in every sort of way, and I am afraid that it is not going to be used for purposes of study and research, as the right hon. Gentleman (Sir A. Mond) led us to believe, but as propaganda in the war spirit. Owing to the strenuous times in which we live, I have not had the opportunity of visiting the museum, but I have had complaints made to me by those who have, and I wish very briefly to point them out, because I think they add strength to my original objection. The Naval part of the museum, which, as far as these things go, I consider the most important for this country, is not by any means properly displayed, in accordance with its importance. It takes a third place,
a very third place indeed. These are not captious criticisms, they have been made to me very seriously by naval officers who have been there, and I think it right to mention them. Another matter was mentioned by the right hon. Baronet (Sir A. Mond) when he replied to my criticism on the Second Reading. He said that, so far from the museum being any propaganda for war, or glorifying the horrible institution of war to the younger generation who were fortunate enough to escape this War, if only people went to see the Royal Army Medical Corps exhibits they would have the disgusting side and the terrible side of an international struggle brought home to them. He rather softened my opposition by that. I am told by the Royal Army Medical Corps section it does contain these horrors, which, so far as they can bring home the awful horrors and waste of war, are to be commended. But that section, I am told, is "skied," to use the Royal Academy expression. It has been put in the gallery and in a corner, and that, I think, is some answer to the arguments then used by the right hon. Gentleman. I make one suggestion. I take it from a source to which I do not often go, the Press. I see that a newspaper suggests that the price of manufacture of every gun, aeroplane, mine-thrower, flame-thrower, gas-projector and all the rest of them should be marked on it in plain figures. That, I think, is a very admirable suggestion, and I hope the right hon. Gentleman will use his influence to have that done. Let Democracy know what it costs to go in for war, and know that besides the pomp and the ceremony and the suffering and the disease and the demoralisation, it is also a costly business, and that we will have to pay even more dearly for it in the future.

Colonel GREIG: I think the hon. Member who has just spoken might have visited the Imperial War Museum before attempting to criticise it, to see whether his criticism at all corresponds with the facts.

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: I said I had not had the opportunity.

Colonel GREIG: That is exactly what I suggest. Instead of going on secondhand information and getting cheap criticism from the newspapers, he might at least have gone and seen things for him-
self. I suppose no description could be more unlike the one he gave of what actually took place. He called it a public holiday. It was not a public holiday. It was a tribute to those we have lost and whose lives were sacrificed for us. It was a religious ceremony carried out from first to last in the best and most reverential manner. And then the hon. Member comes here and says that it was a public holiday. It corresponds not at all with a public holiday.

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: I do not think the hon. and gallant Gentleman wishes to misrepresent me. Might I point out that "holiday" does not necessarily mean a beanfeast. "Holy day" was the original sense—[HON. MEMBERS: "Oh, oh!]—and I meant no offence. It was a great public ceremony.

Colonel GREIG: We all connect the term public holiday with quite other sorts of exhibitions from what we saw when this exhibition was opened, and I wish to make this protest, on behalf of those who were there, against the description the hon. Gentleman has given. Also, he is inconsistent with himself, because after having denounced the exhibition, and denounced the idea altogether, he begins to complain that it is not complete from his own point of view and of those whom he assumes he represents—I mean the great silent Service. I do not wish to pursue the subject, but I think those who have been concerned in bringing this idea to fruition have done a great service to the nation. There is nothing aggressive, there is nothing military about it at all, nothing that wilt conduce to the spirit of militarism. If anything, it will do what the hon. Member who has just spoken suggests, in getting rid of militarism in this country. I think the exhibition, taken in the right spirit, is one of the best means of doing that.

Sir D. MACLEAN: I hope my right hon. Friend will be able, before the Bill receives its Third Reading, to give us some sort of estimate of what the annual cost of this exhibition is to be. I have no objection to a national museum for the commemoration of the War, but I am nervous as to the idea of Government Departments in connection with the cost of these matters, and I should like to know whether, before the Session closes,
we shall have an opportunity on his estimates of considering, and, if necessary, revising, his idea for what the annual cost should be. There is no desire on the part of the nation to be parsimonious in this matter, but I am quite sure there is also a very genuine desire to see that no unnecessary money is spent, and I hope my right hon. Friend will be able to give us some information on these points.

Sir A. MOND: I think the best opportunity of discussing the question my right hon. Friend has just raised will be on the Estimate of the Imperial War Museum, which will come before Parliament in the usual course. All that the Bill does is merely to establish the mode of government, it does not really affect the question of finance. I quite agree that we do not want to spend more money than we can possibly help, and I think I can claim to have got a very valuable collection for relatively very little indeed, but until the trustees have been formally appointed and the future policy of the museum is definitely laid down, I would not like to name any definite figure. We have merely gathered at the Crystal Palace the vast amount of material which we collected through the agency of the various Services, and I would point out to the hon. and gallant Gentleman who spoke first (Lieut.-Commander Kenworthy) that really each branch of the Service was asked to be responsible for its exhibits. The Admiralty had a Subcommittee which was responsible for what they wanted to show and how they wanted to exhibit it. It is impossible, even in the biggest building, to show completely the enormous services performed by the Navy and the other departments. But the hon. Gentleman is quite mistaken when he says that the Navy was given a third place. The space for the Navy is as much as the space for the Army, and I think the public will consider the Naval exhibits the most important in the collection. The hon. Gentleman also said the Royal Army Medical Corps section has been "skied." That is not an accurate description. The Royal Army Medical Corps section is in the gallery upstairs, where there are many other things, including the poster section. Will the hon. Gentleman give me the pleasure of seeing the museum with me? Then he will see that with the amount of space at our disposal we must place certain things upstairs, and naturally the
smallest things go upstairs and the heavier armament goes on the ground floor. I can assure him that those whom I had the pleasure of accompanying round the museum yesterday all felt that the museum expressed the terror and horror of war, and the only doubt I had had was whether it is right to set up a memorial which must show so much misery as naturally occurred when the War was on. But we have not got to think of the present century, we have got to think of the century ahead. The object we have had in view has been to enable future generations to see what happened in the greatest event in the world. Of the twenty years of the Napoleonic War, the only relics are five guns and a few hundred cuirasses, and if the hon. Gentleman and others had lived a hundred years hence I am sure they would reproach us if we had not done what we have done. The question of publicity has nothing to do with the Imperial War Museum. No public money is being spent on advertising the museum. It is part of the arrangement with the trustees of the Crystal Palace that they are doing the advertising at their own expense and are receiving the shillings of the people who go there. I want to thank the House and Committee for giving me the Bill.

Sir D. MACLEAN: Will my right hon. Friend tell me rather more definitely what he means when he refers to the Estimate? He says he is unable to give us a forecast of what the actual cost is going to be. What I want to know is whether in regard to the Estimate that is going to be submitted to the House he will impress upon his responsible officials that what we on this side want in Committee of Supply is that the Estimate for the current year shall not be framed on the general principle that we must find out for ourselves what a thing costs as we go along. The right hon. Gentleman knows exactly what I mean. I want him to treat this matter just as he would treat a great department in one of his own big businesses. I want him to let us have such an Estimate before us as will show us where we stand. I do not want the Estimate in the form in which, unfortunately, so many Estimates are submitted to Parliament.

Sir A. MOND: I think there is a little misunderstanding between my right hon. Friend and myself. I thought he was re-
ferring to the final Estimate of cost. I think I can give him what he now asks for. The Estimate for 1920–21 will amount to about £50,000. It will show a considerable reduction on the Estimate of last year. The Imperial War Museum has been on the Estimates of the last two or three years. There is nothing new about the item. I have stated that I cannot give the final cost. We have a large staff at the present time doing cataloguing and other work, but the right hon. Gentleman may take it that the Estimate for this year will not be anything like a permanent charge. In fact, I am convinced that the permanent charge will be much lower in amount.

Mr. INSKIP: On the Resolution on which his Bill was founded I made certain observations as to the expediency of spending money on an object of this character, and I now desire to repeat the substance of those observations in order to voice my own opinion that the expenditure of this money is not justified in the circumstances in which we find ourselves. I noticed with some interest that a certain Gentleman wrote to "The Times" a few days ago and abused Members of this House for not having resisted the expenditure of this money. I do not see the hon. Member present in his place this afternoon, but I respectfully think that this £50,000 ought not to be spent, and I shudder at the vista which the right hon. Gentleman has opened to us of a century of expenditure upon this scale. He tells us we are setting up a war museum, not for this generation alone or merely in order to attract persons who may be interested in the War and in the weapons used by their brothers and fathers, but that we are setting up in a permanent form a museum which is to be in existence for more than a century, in order that a century hence people may have the advantage of seeing the kind of guns used in this present War. Clause 4 makes me think that really the Department which is responsible for this institution has lost all sense of proportion. It is proposed to set up a board of directors, a general curator, and a staff of officers, who are all to be paid such salaries as the Treasury may from time to time determine. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Peebles (Sir D. Maclean) asked pertinently whether proper explanations will be given when the Estimate
comes up for consideration. But I have found in my short experience of Parliament that when we come to Estimates hon. Members shrug their shoulders. They say the money has been spent and the liability incurred, and it is too late now to do anything but accept the Estimate placed before them. The time to have objected, they say, was when the Bill was introduced. I do not under, rate the interest of this museum, but what I say is, that when an institution of this character ceases to be self-supporting, by means of fees paid by persons who want to see it, then the museum loses its justification. If there is a public which desires to see this interesting exhibition, opened as it was under august patronage, by all means let them have access to it as long as they take any interest in it and care to pay for it. But when we find £50,000 placed on the Estimates of this year, and a similar sum to be put on the Estimates every year for the next century—

Sir A. MOND: I am sure my hon. Friend will excuse me for reminding him that I distinctly pointed out that the House must not look upon this year's Estimate as of the nature of permanent expenditure. The permanent expenditure will, we believe, be very much less.

Mr. INSKIP: Quite so, but it may reach or exceed the £50,000 for all that, and the right hon. Gentleman's successors will get this additional argument for their use, that it seems a pity not to spend money on maintaining the museum and in employing a staff to look after it, seeing that it is for the interest of the public. I think if we can save only £20,000 it is well worth saving. If there is a demand for this museum, if it can be supported and paid for by the public, by all means let the public have it; but I do not think we are justified in voting such a large sum out of public funds.

Major Sir P. LLOYD-GREAME: I think a museum of this kind is obviously a right and proper institution, and we should regret it very much if we did not set it up. It is not for this country alone; it will be open to visitors from other countries. I quite agree with my hon. Friend in one thing, and that is that when we are incurring expenditure of this kind the institution should as far as possible be self-supporting. I rather gathered from what the right hon. Gentleman said that the shillings of those who pay to see
it are going to be handed over to the Trustees of the Crystal Palace. I would like to know if any arrangement has been made limiting the amount of money to be paid over to the Trustees. A certain sum is being paid to the Trustees for the use of the building in which this museum is held, and, should the exhibition prove a great financial success, will any proportion of the admission fees go in reduction of this Vote?

Major BARNES: Will the right hon. Gentleman tell us what has been the whole cost up to and including this £50,000?

Sir MARTIN CONWAY: I have refrained from taking part in the Debates on the Imperial War Museum, in mercy to the House, because, having been Director-General of the Museum since the start, I have been afraid I might be tempted to talk at great length on matters in which, naturally, I feel very considerable interest. There are two or three points on which I would like to say a word or two. The first is as to the rent of the Crystal Palace, and the method in which the entrance fees are to be dealt with. The cost of running the Crystal Palace is, I understand, about £75,000 a year. The Imperial War Museum gets the use of the building for £25,000 a year rent, and the difference, it is hoped, may be recouped to the Crystal Palace trustees by means of the shillings to be taken at the door. I cannot think that any bargain which we could have made would have been more profitable to the War Museum than the one I have described. Before the Crystal Palace was taken, it was costing something between £8,000 and £10,000 a year merely to store in warehouses scattered all over the place, the materials which have now been brought together in the Crystal Palace. These materials were, of course, at that time inaccessible and invisible to the public. If they were to be of any use at all, it was necessary to bring them together somewhere, and the Crystal Palace has been secured for that purpose. Therefore, the net cost of housing the War Museum there is really about £15,000 a year. There is another point I would like to make. It is asked, why, at the present time, when, in the mind of every one of us economy is a matter of such high importance, we should spend £50,000 on a War Museum. I would point out, first of all, that the objects which formed
the collection existed, and if they had not been collected together at the moment they were, they would ere this, many of them, at any rate, have passed out of existence.
That is particularly true in connection with aircraft. The air machine after it has ceased to be in actual use has to be destroyed practically at once. The entire history of the development of aircraft during the War would have been unrecorded had it not been for the existence of the Imperial War Museum. In years to come the history of the development of aircraft during the War will be one of the most important matters to be remembered in relation to the development of human civilisation. There is no doubt whatever that the future of flying and the future of civilisation will he very much entangled. The development of the flying services during the five years of War has been a matter of really enormous importance in the history of the human race, and were it not for the Imperial War Museum we should not have had a collection in which the whole story is exemplified by aircraft which otherwise would have ceased to exist. As to the general cost of the museum in years to come, I understand that there is no museum in the country of any importance that is self-supporting or ever will be. No museum can ever pay its cost with fees taken at the door. Neither the National Gallery nor the British Museum nor any of the art gaileries or museums in our great provincial cities could be supported on the fees taken at the doors. That does not mean that the museum does not pay. As a matter of fact, the museums of the country pay most handsomely. One of the ways in which they pay is by their relation to the tourist industry. I have no doubt that England must always be in the future a great place of pilgrimage From all the world, and especially the English-speaking world, pilgrims will come to visit the old country from which their race sprang, and where its great developments have their roots. The museums of England are a most paying feature, indirectly, by reason of their attraction to tourists. The tourist industry in the immediate future will be one of our great paying industries. Every year it increases in value, and our museums have a direct relationship to it, quite as much as have hotels or any other factors of that kind.

Lieut. Commander KENWORTHY: What about the alien factor?

Sir M. CONWAY: That is a question upon which I need not dwell. Finally, there is the question of the future cost of the Museum to the country, and that, of course, entirely depends upon the scheme adopted. You can make the Museum what you please. You can make it a mere storehouse of souvenirs and trophies and guns, but those are the matters of smallest importance in the Museum. It is in the records, the maps actually used by the Generals in the field, the enormous collection of photographs, all the air photographs that were taken, the record of all the work of women throughout the length and breadth of the country during the War in manufacture and substitution, the library, the map room—it is in all those smaller and less striking objects that the main value and importance of the Museum to the historian will consist. If it is to be a real place of research, a real place where the scientific history of the development of the marine engine during War-time, the development of aircraft, the development of the air engine, and all the rest of the scientific side of human activity during those five years of War, is to be recorded and illustrated, it may be necessary to have attached to it a staff of, say, half-a-dozen experts, who will not be cheap. On the other hand, if you like to make it nothing but a kind of raree show, a few police will be enough to keep it in order and look after the exhibits. The ultimate cost of the Museum will depend upon the scheme that is adopted, and that scheme will have to be accepted by the House of Commons. The cost will be grater or less in proportion to the ultimate utility of the collection at the Museum, and no scheme can be made, no plan can be elaborated, until you have the Board of Trustees which this Bill proposes to create. It is for that reason that I think the discussion of the ultimate cost of the Museum is premature. I would ask hon. Members to await developments, and to give attention to that question when the actual plan can be laid before them.

Sir D. MACLEAN: A question has been asked, which perhaps my hon. Friend can answer, as to the total cost
up to date, including the £50,000 which the right hon. Gentleman has just indicated as the cost for this year.

Sir M. CONWAY: I have not the figures here, but I do not think it has been very much above £100,000. I think £120,000 is about the figure.

Commander BELLAIRS: I rise for the purpose of repeating a plea which I have made once before, namely, that we should have a Budget in regard to this Imperial War Museum. We want to see it in a connected form. We want to see what is paid for rent, insurance, salaries, and so forth, and also what is the prospective cost. My hon. Friend has outlined several possibilities for the future, and we might have estimates in regard to all those matters. I was somewhat surprised when my right hon. Friend said that the only relics of the French Revolutionary War were a few guns. We have the "Victory," and we have very many relics in the Royal United Service Institution. Indeed, that Institution houses nearly all the relics of our previous wars, and I am somewhat appalled at the idea of a great museum of relics in regard to this War. I think that what is really worth preserving will be almost crowded out by what is not worth preserving. Supposing that the same policy had been followed in regard to the French Revolutionary War, the Crimean War, or all the great wars we have had, this country would have become a vast museum of war relics. I do not agree with my hon. and gallant Friend who said, that the contemplation of war relics leads to the military instinct. On the contrary, I think it leads to quite the reverse instinct. It is only a generation which has not known war nor contemplated war that ever gets into war again. There is generally an interval of about 40 years before a great civilised power goes into another war. At any rate, as we want to be able to criticise this scheme in a connected form, let my right hon. Friend give us a Budget of the scheme, showing what plans he has in mind in regard to the future. Is the Crystal Palace going to be the permanent home of the Museum, or are we going to be let in for a great building scheme such as some of our architects have outlined? That is a thing which I think this House will not sanction at this present time, when building costs five times as much as it formerly did.

Sir ALFRED MOND: Hon. Members seem to have overlooked the fact that details of expenditure in regard to this matter will be found set out in Vote 7, Class 4, of the Civil Service Estimates. Year by year, over a series of years, Estimates have been voted for the Imperial War Museum. This Bill in no way affects the Estimates. Those Estimates have been passed when there has been no Board of Trustees at all. If this Bill is not passed to-day we shall still go on in the same way. My hon. and gallant Friend (Commander Bellairs) asks me really to state what is to be the future policy of the Board, of which I may not even be a member. I must respectfully decline to do that. One of the objects of the exhibition at the Crystal Palace is that we may be able to form an opinion as to whether all this mass of material should be maintained, or what eliminations may have to be made. It is impossible for any human being to forsee the final stage exactly. The present position is that the lease of the Crystal Palace has been taken for four years, and this House and the country will have four years in which to consider whether it is suitable for the purpose, and whether it is to be temporary or permanent. It is not a matter for this country merely; it is an Imperial matter. On the Board of Trustees every Dominion will be represented. It will be the one great thing the Empire will have, and it will always be my conception that it must be the great Imperial War Memorial. If it became the great Imperial War Memorial, this House and the country might consider it more reasonable to enshrine it in a noble and dignified building than to spend large sums of money in monuments and statues scattered all over the country. Those are all questions, not for the present, but for the future. They are questions for the Board of Trustees and for the Cabinet. I sincerely trust that some day the money will be forthcoming, if not from public funds, from private people with hearts large enough to provide a permanent shrine to illustrate the greatest sacrifice this Empire has ever borne in its whole history, to commemorate the 800,000 men who died in one great glorious roll of honour. Whatever I can do in that direction I frankly say, here and now, I shall endeavour to do.

DANGEROUS DRUGS BILL.

Order for Second Reading read.

Major BAIRD: I beg to move, "That the Bill be now read a Second time."
This Bill gives effect to the International Opium Convention signed at The Hague on the 23rd January, 1912. The purpose of the Convention was to bring under control throughout the world the traffic in opium and cocaine, and the preparations derived from them, and to restrict their use to medical and other legitimate purposes. The Convention was signed on behalf of all the Powers represented, with the exception of Turkey and Serbia. Some of the countries, including Germany, failed to ratify the Convention before the outbreak of War, and it was never brought into operation. During the War, Great Britain found it necessary to take action on her own account, owing, firstly, to the spread of the cocaine habit, and, secondly, to the extensive smuggling of opium carried on in the East, which caused trouble and delay to our merchant shipping in connection with China. Therefore a Regulation, No. 40B, was made under the Defence of the Realm Act, which enabled us to control the manufacture, sale and distribution of cocaine; and a proclamation was issued under the Customs Consolidation Act to prohibit the import of cocaine or opium except under the licence of the Secretary of State. Those measures did not prove altogether successful, as hon. Members will recollect from the various cases which occurred during the War. That was largely owing to the difficulty of controlling smuggling in the case of an article which can be brought in in such small quantities and so easily sold as opium. We believe that the only effective control can come from international co-operation. The Allied Powers attached so much importance to this question that the ratification of the International Convention to which I have referred is made one of the conditions of Peace, and is embodied in Article 295 of the Peace Treaty, which binds the contracting parties to bring the Convention into force, and for that purpose to enact the necessary legislation without delay, and in any case within 12 months of the coming into force of the Treaty. That is an obligation which we have entered into. It becomes doubly important that we should have the power which this Bill would
confer, if it becomes an Act, because of the impending abrogation of Defence of the Realm Regulations. The Bill is limited to carrying out the Convention except in one respect, and that is in Clause 8, Sub-section (2), where we ask for powers to extend provisions not only to the derivatives of morphine and cocaine, but to any other alkaloid of opium and any other drug of any kind which is likely to produce the same injurious effects, and this was contemplated, as may be seen in Article 14 of the Convention. Another reason why we are anxious to have the powers which this Bill would confer upon us is that our representatives in China and Japan have repeatedly referred to the disastrous effect of the traffic which is being carried on with China in morphia and cocaine to a very large extent, and both China and Japan are signatories to the Convention.

Lieut. - Commander KENWORTHY: When it is passed will this Bill be able to stop the whole of this great trade in morphia?

Major BAIRD: Whether it will stop the whole of it is doubtful, but the Bill embodies the best means which commended themselves to those who represented these 42 powers at the International Convention, and it represents the results of their labours and their recommendations. It may not be perfect, but it is a great step in advance, and we hope that if we get these powers we shall be able largely to assist our Allies in Japan and our friends in China to deal with this very important and pernicious matter. Of course, a big measure of this kind naturally affects the interests of large bodies of our fellow-countrymen, and the Pharmaceutical Society has made representations. Both with regard to their representations and others which we have had from the wholesale dealers, we hope to be able to meet them. As regards the Pharmaceutical Society, we have already had an opportunity of considering the points which they advanced, and with one exception I hope in Committee it will be possible to accept Amendments which will meet their views. As regards the wholesale dealers, they expressed a desire to put their views before my right hon. Friend, but only so recently as yesterday or the day before, and therefore it has not been possible to meet them and discuss the question, but with regard to
both these important bodies we are most ready to listen to any representations which will enable us to devise some Amendments which will alleviate any legitimate hardships without weakening the force of the Measure, to which we attach very great importance. The details of the Bill are of a very technical character, and I do not think much would be gained if I were to go through them at this stage. Everyone is imbued with the desire to restrict the misuse of this most valuable drug, and to collaborate with other countries in reducing its use to legitimate and proper preparations, and seeing that the Bill embodies the recommendations of this very competent body of men, representative of practically all the nations, who assembled at the Hague in 1912, I hope the House will be content with giving us the Second Reading without prolonged discussion, and that we shall be able to deal with the details on the only occasion when we really can deal with them satisfactorily, which is in Committee. There are certainly one or two points of detail which have already been brought to my right hon. Friend's attention, and there will no doubt be others, but I do not think we can usefully deal with those matters until we can thrash them out in Committee.

Dr. D. MURRAY: This is a Bill that is more important than its size indicates, and with its general objects the House would unanimously be in hearty sympathy. It is divided into two aspects, the international and the domestic. We may congratulate the Home Secretary upon taking up the international aspect The history of this country in connection with the drug habit all over the world, and in connection with the opium traffic, has been one of the most disgraceful pages in our history and one which we can never look back upon without a sense of shame.

Notice taken that 40 Members were not present. House counted, and 40 Members being found present—

Dr. MURRAY: It is a hopeful augury, I trust, for the League of Nations to see the Government associating themselves with other nations of the world in connection with such a very humane Bill, and although on the surface the provisions made for the international aspect of the question do not appear to me to be very drastic, still I hope they will be
more effective than they appear to be. There are one or two aspects of the domestic problem which perhaps may be worth noting before the Bill passes, as I have no doubt it will. The drug habit is a matter that is well worth the attention of the Government, and I am glad they are beginning to take notice of this great evil in the social structure of our country. It is not only a great but a growing evil, and it seems to be growing pari passu with certain types of civilisation. We have not much of it in our country districts. As a rule these habits are learned, developed, and practised rather in the towns, especially in the bigger towns, amongst certain sections of the population, although it is not confined to any one section. The Government has selected perhaps the principal drugs that are used—opium and its derivatives, morphine and cocaine. The manner in which the Government proposes to attack the drug habit is quite on the right lines, and with one or two slight modifications I do not see any reason why they should not have their Bill.
8.0 P.M.
I do not know what the references to medical men and dispensers exactly mean. Very often the excuse given by people who are victims of the drug habit is that the doctor prescribed it for them for certain ailments, and unfortunately, after the immediate need for it had passed, the patient, finding the effects of it pleasant, continues it until he becomes a victim and cannot get rid of it. I presume what is meant by one of the Clauses giving power to the Home Secretary for "regulating the issue by medical practitioners of prescriptions containing any such drug, and the dispensing of any such drugs," is that a chemist who dispenses a prescription containing any of these drugs will not be allowed to dispense it without a renewed prescription being given by the doctor. I do not know how many times a doctor may allow it to be dispensed without the renewed authority, but there certainly should be some limit to that practice, otherwise they might go on taking the drug for a long time. I have often heard people who are addicted even to drink say the doctor advised them to take some, as St. Paul says, for the stomach's sake, or for some other medical purpose. But that is unfair to the doctors, because they do not continue to take the unpleasant medicine after the desired effect has been produced. The doctors
are sometimes blamed for that. There is one thing on which I should be inclined to blame some of my medical brethren in connection with the drug habit, and that is the habit of taking medicated wines among women. I wish the Home Secretary had taken power to abolish medicated wine. If a doctor wants to prescribe wine let him prescribe good honest port or something of that kind, without it being mixed up with drugs. There is nothing that produces more drinking among women than medicated wines, which are a camouflaged method of introducing drinking habits. This is a subject which I commend to the attention of the Home Office. With regard to the question of keeping books of all the drugs that are sent out, I hope that any regulation which is adopted in regard to dispensing or prescribing or in regard to the necessary book work in connection with drugs, will be framed in consultation with the representatives of the medical profession and of the pharmaceutical profession. Otherwise they may be drawn by someone who may do harm without producing the results desired. For an offence against this Act a fine of £200 can be imposed, and on this point I should like to draw attention to the question of alcoholic poisoning. We have, and I am not saying it in any narrow sense, deaths resulting from alcoholic poison; many thousands in a year. We have also deaths indirectly resulting from alcoholic poisoning, inasmuch as people are drowned whilst under the influence of alcohol. You do not punish those who sold the alcohol. There was a case some time ago in London where a person died as a result of having been supplied with cocaine, and there was a tremendous hullabaloo to get hold of the man who had distributed the cocaine. In that case he might have been quite innocently a cause, as a link in the chain, of the death of this particular victom of the drug habit. Under this Bill he may be imprisoned or fined £200, whereas the man who sells alcoholic poison which has been the means of killing somebody goes free, and his conduct is not inquired into. That is an unfair discrimination by the law against medical men, chemists, and other people as compared with those who sell something which is used by people in connection with the drug habit. This may not be a conventional view, but it is one which
ought to be taken into account. The question of penalty ought to be very carefully considered before the penalties are finally adopted. The general lines of the Bill will have my cordial support.

Mr. WOOLCOCK: I only intervene in this Debate because, with the exception of one of the hon. Members for Norfolk, I am the only person in this House who holds a pharmaceutical qualification, and because for some years it was my duty as secretary of the Pharmaceutical Society to administer the Pharmacy Acts of this country and the laws relating to poisons. I have, therefore, had special opportunity for forming an opinion, for what it is worth, on this Bill. From my experience I can very cordially welcome the principle of the Bill, and congratulate my hon. Friend on having introduced it. There are some points in the Bill, and not merely matters of detail, upon which the House would be glad if my hon. Friend would give some assurance. In regard to Part 1, which deals solely with raw opium, and Part 2, which deals with smoking opium, there is little to be said. It is when we come to Part 3 that we get into difficulty, and I am afraid we shall get into difficulty, because my hon. Friend has not had the advantage of receiving any advice or assistance from the people who are accustomed to draft regulations and to draft Acts of Parliament dealing with the poison laws. The framers of the International Opium Convention, to which this Bill is supposed to give effect, were rather wiser than my hon. Friend in that respect. They realised in that Convention that most civilised countries have pharmacy laws, and hence in that Convention, in Article 10 (c), we find an agreement
To require that such persons shall enter in their books the quantities manufactured, imports, sales and all other distribution, and reports of morphine, cocaine and their respective salts. This rule shall not necessarily apply to medical prescriptions and to sales by duly authorised chemists.
I make no complaint that the Home Office have gone much further than that. In endeavouring to get agreement among the large number of countries which are parties to the Convention, the highest standard cannot be taken, but one has to find a common denominator, and in the Convention the common denominator was
found. The Home Office Bill goes rather further. I make no complaint, but I would refer particularly to Clause 7 of the Bill, paragraph (b), which prohibits "the manufacture, sale, or distribution of any such drug except by persons licensed or otherwise authorised under the Regulations"
The effect of that may be that this House having passed the Poisons and Pharmacy Act and laid down certain provisions under which a person is allowed to carry on the business of chemist and druggist and to keep open shop for the sale of poisons, and having laid down regulations prescribing the examination, in fact having done everything to safeguard the public interests, we are now proposing by regulations which may be drawn by a Government Department to supersede these important provisions of that Act. For example, unless the regulations are drafted in some particular way, we can have the curious instance of a person, being qualified under the Poisons and Pharmacy Act to carry on business, having his business taken away by reason of the fact that he has not been granted a licence to deal in these particular drugs. I hope the House will bear in mind that while we are speaking loosely at the moment of opium, morphine, cocaine, ecgonine, and heroin, we are dealing with an enormous number of articles. It is not merely three or four simple drugs for which you are legislating, but you are dealing with an enormous number of preparations which will be affected, and this not by the express sanction of the House, but by regulations to be made hereafter and which may be made, apart from the assurance which my hon. and gallant Friend has given, without consultation with any of the bodies who are interested. I suggest that the Government should give us an assurance in regard to two or three of these things when the proper time comes. I would like the hon. and gallant Gentleman to promise to provide that the restrictions imposed by this Act, or any regulations made under it, shall be in addition to and not in substitution for the provisions of the Pharmacy Act and the Poisons and Pharmacy Act. I think this is important if we are not to have chaos in a very technical and difficult subject to administer. I ask for a promise on the Committee stage that a pharmacist who carries on business as a chemist should have the right to dispense and retail sub-
stances provided for under this Act. That is essential unless you are going to overrule the former Act.
Then there is the very important power given to the Home Office, which, I think, should only be used in very serious cases. I am prepared to go the whole way in dealing with those abominations which have been mentioned, and in preventing the illicit way in which they have been dealt with during the later stages of the War. No penalty is too severe in order to stop those practices. May I point out, however, that there is no appeal. We do not know what the regulations may be, and we have no promise that those whose livelihood may depend upon their administration may be consulted, and yet for a breach of those regulations, it may be serious or trifling, whatever the breach is there is absolutely no appeal, and we have to rely entirely upon the Government Department concerned, and accept their finding. I ask the hon. and gallant Gentleman to say, in the case of anyone who is guilty of a breach of the Act or the regulations, that they shall have the right of appeal to some court. I think this is a power which, perhaps, it is necessary to place in the hands of the Home Office, in view of the character of the traffic in certain drugs. I suggest that in legislation of this kind, and particularly in drafting legislation which means so much in regard to this subject, the hon. and gallant Gentleman should assure the House that he will take the opportunity of obtaining the advice and assistance of those experienced in administering the Poisons and Pharmacy Acts, which, I am sure, will be very readily given.

Mr. A. WILLIAMS: The hon. Gentleman who has just sat down has called attention to the fact that this Bill confines this trade to certain persons who are licensed and also to certain places, and he has pointed out the hardships that might be inflicted upon those who have pharmaceutical qualifications. I want to call attention to this question from another point of view. I am clear in my own mind that they may be necessary from the point of view of the public interest and our obligations towards other nations. I believe, however, that they will probably create valuable monopolies in the hands of certain people,
just as we have been obliged to licence persons and places for the sale of alcoholic liquors and their manufacture. Those restrictions have been in every way necessary, but the result has been to create valuable monopolies in the hands of certain individuals, and we have had a long fight over vested interests and licence duties and monopoly values, on account of the granting of new licences and so forth.
It seems to me the same thing may arise out of this Bill and perhaps a word of warning may save the State considerable sums and difficulties hereafter. If it is found in practice that these licenses create in the hands of individuals valuable monopolies, it seems appropriate the State should have a clear right to intervene and take by way of taxation any monopoly value that so arises. I do not suggest provisions to that effect now, but when we have got our experience I hope the State will claim a clear and undoubted right to take any monopoly value which arises. Besides this it seems to me that we are going to incur a considerable danger of the cornering of the market, and there again I think a word of warning beforehand may not be unwise. I believe that certain drugs already have been cornered, and the price has been put up to a very considerable extent. Clearly if you are going to institute regulations for controlling the production, sale and distribution of raw opium, cocaine, morphine and other drugs, and confine that trade to certain persons to be licensed for the purpose, there is a great danger that those persons, being few in number and free from outside competition, may put their heads together to corner the market and to exact from the public a very undue profit. These dangers, it seems to me, we must face because the general scheme of the Act is so necessary from every point of view. I hope that if they arise, and if it is necessary for the State to take drastic steps to secure any monopoly value which arises and to control any cornering or profiteering which may arise, I hope nobody will be found to deny the right of the State to do whatever may be thought necessary when those circumstances arise.

Captain ELLIOT: We are very grateful to the Home Office for Clause 11 of this Bill, which provides that the Regula-
tions under it shall be laid before Parliament, which will have the power of considering them and annulling them if necessary. That will help to avoid any fear that some committee of officials will draw up impracticable Regulations. With regard to the general purpose of the Bill, it is interesting to think that the Bill is being brought in primarily for an evil, spreading, I think, more from the United States than from any other country. It is also very interesting to remember that that is the great temperance country at the moment. It is a strange and noteworthy thing that alcoholism is in many ways simply the expression of a nervous weakness in the patient. Nervous weakness leads to the alcoholism, not alcoholism to the nervous weakness. If you try to stamp out alcoholism by pure prohibition measures you drive the weak man from one form of drug to another form of drug. It is an example of the danger of merely negative attack on any social evil, and the fact that a Bill such as this is necessary is a very striking commentary on the trend of some of our legislation. Other countries that have managed to get rid of alcoholism have found that some other vice has taken its place. In medieval times the literature of China was full of bacchanalian drinking songs, and poetry in praise of wine. They managed to stamp that out, and the vice of opium smoking immediately arose. It tends to show that we ought to think twice and thrice before interfering with the long-established habits of the human race, especially of the Western races, which have been accustomed to use alcohol in moderation. I admit that the barbarians of the West—I mean the inhabitants of America—

Lieut. - Commander KENWORTHY: Order, order!

Captain ELLIOT: I do not think that is too strong a phrase to use of people who have such an extraordinary savage idea of stamping out all people who happen to disagree with their particular views. I think the hon. and gallant Member for Central Hull (Lieut.-Commander Kenworthy) will agree that in their treatment of people who disagree with their social theories, there are none more violent or more ill-judged than the people of the United States. Their
recent treatment of the Socialists in that country is not a thing that would be allowed in this country, and we must remember that their extraordinary anti-alcohol legislation is an expression of extreme views which I do not think are suited to the social life of this country. At any rate, you have this effect, that they have gone in for prohibition and that they have developed the drug habit to an extent altogether unknown in this country. It may be simply a coincidence, but the death rate from delirium tremens has gone up some 300 per cent. I do not think the hon. Member for the Western Isles (Dr. Murray) will deny that in many cases the nervous diathesis shows itself in a trend either towards alcohol or some other drug, and if alcohol is prohibited, then the other drug, which is much more fatal, is resorted to in its place. That, perhaps, is rather a large question to enter upon on this particular Bill. I think all medical men in this House and in the country would like to draw the attention of the Government to the necessity for dealing with patent medicines. Before the War, a powerful Committee of this House investigated thoroughly the question of patent medicines, and drew up a well-thought-out and moderate Report, which, by an unlucky mischance, was presented to the House on the day of the outbreak of the War. Now the War is over, I beg the Home Office to confer with the Ministry of Health and to disinter this valuable Report from the dusty pigeon-holes in which it is lying, and to introduce legislation along the lines recommended, because in patent medicines very powerful drugs, which may be dangerous if used to excess, are lavishly used by people who are altogether ignorant of the dangers they run. Various great evils have occurred from people using these drugs under conditions which no medical man or chemist would dare to prescribe. As to the Bill now before the House, we hope that it is only the beginning of international work for dealing with health problems as a whole. The microbe knows no frontier and disease is not limited to any kind of national flag. The efforts made in the War towards co-operation in destruction have shown us how much we can do by co-operation for production and for health, not only between individuals of the same nation, but between individuals of all nations. That is the only way in
which we shall ever deal successfully with the great problems of disease with which the world is faced now.

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: I do not intend in any way to follow the interesting and enlightened speech of the hon. and gallant Gentleman who has just spoken. I did not quite appreciate what he said about China. I want to deal in a few sentences with the aspects of this Bill as it affects China. I am not very well acquainted with the Chinese classics, but I am acquainted a little with the Chinese people. If the hon. and gallant Member thinks that the Chinese are teetotalers he is very much mistaken. The Chinese are a race of many fine qualities, and I hope they will be a very valuable ally to this Empire in the future. They manufacture a must excellent beer, and they brew a native drink, called samsui, which is not altogether to be despised, so I am told by connoisseurs, and they drink a moderate quantity of it. With the one exception of opium-smoking they are a most sober and temperate race. This Bill, like one or two other good Bills which this Government have brought in, does not go quite far enough. What is really the Government's intention with regard to the opium traffic from the Indian Empire? I think the House will agree that in the past that traffic has been a very black chapter. The Bill is designed, and I hope it will succeed in regulating the import and export to and from this country of opium and allied drugs and prevent their improper use.
The Secretary of State for India in a reply to an hon. Member gave statistics as to the export of opium from India in 1913. They included exports to Japan, where opium smoking is on the increase, according to my information. In 1913 the number of chests exported to Japan was 799, and they went steadily up until 1918–19 when they reached the figure of 1,936. There was a small export of opium in 1916–17 to Formosa and to Indo-China, which is largely inhabited by Chinese, the export of opium from India has been also steadily rising. In 1913–14 it totalled 875 chests and that had risen to 2,690 in the following year, and in 1918–19 it had reached the figure of 3,340 chests. To Java the exports show a small decrease and the number now of 2,400. The export to Siam is now 1,750, having increased from the figure of 1,130 in 1913–14. To
British Borneo, where most of the shops are kept by Chinamen and a good deal of work is done by them, there is an increase in traffic in opium and 130 chests were sent in 1918–19. That is very disgraceful and should be stopped. It has not been stopped because of the power of those who make money out of this terrible traffic. I would like to know when this Bill is passed is it going to be extended to India and are we going to do our best to stop this traffic in opium. I am happy to say that opium traffic in China has very much decreased, thanks to the action of the Chinese Government, action which has been more successful since the Chinese Revolution. I think it is very scandalous that this traffic should be increasing in the places I have mentioned, and I would like an assurance that it is going to he checked. I do not believe the moral sense of the world will stand this sort of blood money being made out of the opium traffic, and I think it is high time it was entirely abolished. During the War the use of morphia increased very much and it was, I believe, extended to all sorts of operations. The blessings of morphia during the war to the wounded and the shattered were beyond calculation. The doctors really did wonders with it and we ought to be grateful to them. I am sure that morphia when properly used has been a real boon to suffering humanity. We have prevented morphia, opium and anæsthetics of any sort from going to Soviet Russia for the last 18 months and they have been fighting on six fronts.

WOMEN, YOUNG PERSONS, AND CHILDREN (EMPLOYMENT) BILL.

Order for Second Reading read.

Major BAIRD: I beg to move, "That the Bill be now read a Second time."
This is a Bill to give effect to an international agreement. The first Schedule of the Bill recites the effects of three Conventions which were agreed to at the recent International Labour Conference held in Washington. The object of the Bill is to enact the necessary legislation to enable effect to be given to those Conventions, and in order that they may be
ratified. The operative part of the Bill is really in the Schedule, and the Bill is mostly taken up with the machinery for giving effect to it. The first Convention deals with the fixing of a minimum age for admission of children to industrial employment; the second is concerned with the night work of young persons employed in industry; and the third deals with the night work of women employed in industry. If the House will sanction this legislation it will take a long step forward in a policy which, I dare say, the House without distinction of party will accept as a wise one, namely, the co-ordination of labour legislation throughout the world as far as possible. Clause 1 prohibits the employment of any child under fourteen years in any industrial undertaking. Subsection (2) provides that no young person or woman shall be employed at night, except to the extent of the circumstances permitted in the Conventions. There we are coming into line with the other countries to the Conventions. The third Sub-section says that where young persons are employed in any industrial undertaking, a register of the young persons so employed, and of the dates of birth, shall be kept and open to inspection. This refers to male persons as well, and if that is not clear now it will be made clear. Sub-section (4) sets forth the effect of the Bill as regards mines and quarries, and paragraph (a) of that Section refers to the Employment of Children Act. Under Sub-section (4c) of Clause 1, it will be seen that we propose to use the machinery of the Factory Acts inspection for the purpose of inspection in connection with these new measures. Clause 2 is not part of the Convention that was agreed to at Washington, and no doubt the House will desire to discuss it either now or later on. It is as follows:
Notwithstanding anything contained in the Factory and Workshop Act, 1901, it shall, subject to any conditions prescribed by the Secretary of State, be lawful at any time between six in the morning and ten in the evening, on any weekday other than Saturday, to employ women and young persons in shifts averaging for each shift not more than eight hours per day.
That is new, but only to this extent, that we ask the sanction of the House to the continuance of conditions which had been adopted during the War, and under which women had been employed who could not have been employed under the
Factory Acts. Under the Factory Acts the day ends at eight; the two-shift system has the twofold result of finding employment for something like 25,000 women and rather over 5,000 young persons with the accompanying increase of production and of work in the dependant industries. I admit at once that there is no justification for seeking a continuance of war conditions in peace time, unless they can be shown to be advantageous to the people employed, and all the experience that we have had through the Factory Inspection Department tends to show that this is a system which has been on the whole beneficial and which does enjoy the support of the women who have been employed on the two shifts. In addition to the reasons which I have advanced in support of the two-shift system, there is this. The House will recognise that taking the Saturday, which is an important day, if you employ two shifts every day of the week, except Saturday, when you only have one shift, you will have a forty hours' week one week and a forty-eight hours' week the next week. The hours of employment are varied in a way which I am told, by those who are in a position to know it at first-hand, is found a convenience for the social and home life of the women who are engaged. In the one case they get the afternoon free, and in the other case they get their morning free. All I can say is that all our information goes to show that the system is beneficial, that it suits those who are employed, and that they do not desire any change. I recollect that on another occasion—I think it was when the War Emergency Laws (Continuance) Act was being discussed—support was given to this system from the Labour benches on the very grounds which I have now advanced.
If hon. Members will look at Article 2 of the Convention concerning the night-work of women in industry they will see that
For the purpose of this Convention, the term 'night' signifies a period of at least eleven consecutive hours, including the interval between ten o'clock in the evening and five o'clock in the morning.
So that it is contemplated that the night shall commence at 10 in the evening instead of 8 o'clock, as is provided under the Factory Acts. The same sentence occurs in the Convention dealing with the night-work of young persons in industry.
The rest of the Bill is practically all machinery, and it will be seen in Clause 3 that
The provisions of this Act shall be in addition to and not in derogation of any of the provisions of any other Act restricting the employment of women, young persons, or children.
That is to say, that any advantages under the Factory Acts, of course, hold good. Sub-section (2) of the same Clause enacts that
Nothing in this Act shall apply to an industrial undertaking in which only members of the same family are employed.
Sub-section (3) states that:
Nothing in this Act shall prevent the employment in any industrial undertaking of a child lawfully so employed at the commencement of this Act.
That is a temporary provision, and we hope the House will agree to it. It is for the relief of children who under this Act cannot enter into employment, but are lawfully employed under the present legislation, so that they will not have to leave their employment. I think it is only a fair point to the children so employed. Under Sub-section (2) of Clause 4 it is provided that
This Act shall come into operation on the first day of January, nineteen hundred and twenty-one, or on such later date or dates as the Secretary of State may by order appoint, and different dates may be appointed for different provisions of this Act.
That is with a view to exceptional instances and for adjustments to be made which could not reasonably be made by the first of January, 1921. Hon. Members will realise that there are instances where, from their very nature, more time is necessary to enable these adjustments to be made, and it is with a view to giving that reasonable time that those words are put in. The schedules, as I say, really reproduce for convenience of reference the text of the Conventions that were passed. Those Conventions mark a very important and interesting stage in international industrial legislation, and the Government hope that the House will give its consent to the Second Reading of this measure, which will enable us to ratify and give effect to these Conventions, subject, of course, to modifications which the House may desire to make in the Committee stage.

Mr. ALFRED DAVIES: (Clitheroe)
We are all agreed that unanimity of labour
conditions in all countries is a very desirable end at which to aim, and I desire to offer my little appreciation of the Convention that sat at Washington and aspired to that end. I must say that I was rather struck with the admission of the hon. and gallant Gentleman who has introduced this Bill that Clause 2 was an addition to anything that had been promoted at the Washington Convention, and it appears to me that it is upon this particular Clause that the whole of the argument will be based. He has justified this Clause on the ground that it is necessary in the interests of increased production, and he also justifies it on the ground that those persons who were employed in the war period in this particular form of occupation desire to have it maintained and continued. I do not know whether that is true or not. I am not going to argue to the contrary, but I do know that, so far as the Lancashire cotton operatives are concerned, they do not propose to entertain this Clause at all. I have received a telegram from the Secretary of the United Textile Workers' Association requesting me to offer the most strenuous opposition to this Clause, and I do so, not only because it emanates from that particular industry with which I was associated as an operative for 35 years, but I believe that the great bulk of the men and women of this country will absolutely protest against the perpetuation of war conditions in peace time.
It is all very well for the hon. and gallant Gentleman to say that economic conditions are compelling, but, personally, I do not agree to the suggestion that it is necessary to continue this form of employment to make up for the world shortage. I think if we were to utilise the mechanical developments prior to, and particularly during the progress of the War, and proper organisation, it would not be necessary to have recourse to employing the young people of our country at untimely hours. When I read this Clause it reminded me of the story of an African chief who was taken to America for the purpose of seeing some of the architectural and engineering achievements of that country, and afterwards he was asked what he considered the most wonderful sight. His reply was that the most remarkable thing during his stay in America was to see strong, able-bodied men playing, and women and children working. That is the condition in this country to-day. You are going to
accentuate the problem by promoting a Clause of this kind, and, personally, I do not think it is needed. I was delighted to know that the delegates who met at Washington were not responsible for the endorsement of a Clause of this character, and, even if they had been, I should have inferred that it was due to the fact that the backward nations—I am speaking from the industrial standpoint—must have been in a majority at the Convention. I am convinced that there is not a single trade union leader of any standing in this country who would subscribe to a Clause of this nature. I believe at the last Industrial Conference, held in London 12 months ago, the executive of that Conference endeavoured to get inserted into the conditions a Clause of this kind. It was turned down, and I hope that this Clause will be turned down. I hope we have not got to that stage of despair when it is necessary to say that we must have the young people of this country engaged in work up to 10 o'clock at night. It is totally unnecessary.
I am not one of those who desire to create any bad blood between employers and workpeople and the Government, but I can assure the hon. Gentleman that, so far as Lancashire textile trades are concerned, they will put forth a most bitter hostility to the proposals contained in this Clause. I would like to put it to hon. Members who do not happen to be associated with the wage-earning classes, if they can conceive the fact that their women-folk were going to work from 2 in the afternoon to 10 o'clock at night, and whether they would look upon that proposition, if submitted to them, with any degree of equanimity. I know they would not, and I think that they will agree with me that if this great nation has to depend upon its women and youths to restore anything like economic stability, then we have got into a very parlous state indeed. I hope the Government, before this Bill goes to Committee, will delete this Clause. I know that in Committee this Clause would meet with a considerable amount of hostility from the Lancashire Members and my colleagues, I daresay, will work in co-operation with me, as they have been instructed, for the purpose of preventing this Clause becoming a legal enactment. I, therefore, hope the hon. and gallant Gentleman will en-
deavour to induce the Government to delete this particular Clause of the Bill.

Mr. G. BARNES: I desire to welcome this Bill as a further instalment to carry out the Convention at Washington for levelling up the conditions of world labour. As the House is aware, the Conference at Washington met at the fall of last year, and proceeded largely by way of reference, and necessarily so, because there were certain findings of Conventions that had been held prior to that, and which had embodied many of the conditions contained in this Bill. A Conference had been held at Berne so long ago as 1906, which made certain recommendations in regard to child labour, the labour of young persons and of women, and also with regard to poisonous processes in industry, and when the Washington Convention met last year, the Berne Conference recommendations had not been adopted generally throughout the world. Therefore one of the objects 9.0 P.M. of Washington was to bring the other countries into line with the Berne recommendations, and also to bring them more into line, and make their conditions approximate more closely to the conditions already obtaining in this country.
Leaders of trade unions have always found that the great difficulty in getting advances in labour conditions in this and other countries was the plea of the employers of foreign competition. It has always been stated by employers that the conditions of employment on the Continent of Europe, and more especially in Eastern countries, were so bad that it was unsafe for them to make further advances. I believe it has always been said by American employers that conditions in Europe were so bad that they could not make improvements in the States. The object of the International Conference at Washington, and other conferences that will be held year by year, under the provisions of the labour chapter of the Peace Treaty, is to induce employers to go ahead together, and to take this plea of foreign competition out of their mouths, and out of the mouths of the enemies of progress, to get all countries to march forward together, and therefore leave them relatively in the same position as before in regard to world competition.
This Bill only covers a small corner of what was dealt with at Washington. It
deals only with three matters, comparatively unimportant compared with other matters which will be dealt with at future conferences. Still, so far as it goes, the Bill embodies certain provisions which will make an improvement in this country, and which, if carried out in other countries, will make immense improvements in the conditions of labour. It is a matter for sincere satisfaction that at Washington we had representatives from the Eastern countries, notably Japan, representatives of authority representing the Government of Japan, and also representatives of the employers and workmen of the most weighty kind—that is to say, we had the best known employer in the person of Mr. Sanji Muto, of Japan, and men representing labour affairs; therefore, the Convention drawn up, and which definitely had the assent of these representative people from Japan, partook more or less of the character of a commercial treaty—because you may depend upon it, having got the assent of representative people at Washington, the Government of Japan will no doubt give their assent to these arrangements as well. This Bill, therefore, is not important so far as it affects the conditions of labour in this country. Its importance really lies in the fact that it will involve immense improvements in the labour conditions in other countries.
Still, in so far as it does affect—with the exception of the point mentioned by my hon. Friend who has just spoken—the labour conditions of this country, it affects them for the better. Take the first point. We have now got a declaration in this Bill that no child shall be employed in any industrial undertaking. The definition of an industrial undertaking is a very wide one, and practically covers everything in the nature of industrial employment. We have it laid down in this Bill that no child, girl or boy, shall be used for profit-making purposes under 14 years of age. By that enactment we shall do away with all those pettifogging provisions about leaving certificates, and the smart and clever child of 13 shall not be penalised by being taken away from school at that age and sent to work just because he has been clever enough to attain a certain standard; he shall at least have the advantage of another year's education, the better to equip him for the struggle of life
before he begins work in the factory, mill, mine, or elsewhere. That, I say, is a very important provision, and a provision which I hope will yet, as I am sure it will, get the assent of all parties in this House.
The second Clause has got in it something which is already a provision of the Factory Acts. That is to say, at present a woman is not allowed to work after 8 o'clock at night if she started at 8 a.m., or 6 p.m. if she starts at 6 a.m. Therefore these provisions that a woman or young person shall be employed up to 10 p.m. is an innovation, and one which I do not like. I quite share the opinion of the hon. Gentleman who preceded me, that it is bad that such a provision should have been embodied in the Bill. When I read the Bill I misunderstood it. I did not think it was intended that Clause 2 should involve employment of women up to 10 o'clock at night. I read Clause 3 as being in connection with Clause 2, and Clause 2 as simply being put in as confirmatory, so to speak, of the provisions that will be, I know, applied in other countries. For instance, Japan was induced to make some considerable concessions in the way of reducing the hours of labour. In the cotton mills of Japan at present the hours are, generally speaking, about 11 per day. In the silk industry, which is the largest industry in Japan, they are more, and work out at 12 to 13 per day. But the Japanese representatives were induced to bring their working hours to a maximum of 9½ per day in all industries except the silk industry—that is to say, 9½ hours is to be the normal in cotton, engineering, metal and various other factories. In order to enable Japan to keep up her present production, or something like it, Japan said it would be necessary for her to work two shifts in all these industries. She could not work two shifts and conform to the Berne Convention at the same time. Therefore Japan promised that, provided she could get sufficient machinery during the next two or three years to enable her to keep up her present production on the two-shift system, she would begin it as from six in the morning till ten at night. I fancy, though I am not sure, because I have not consulted anybody—I fancy this Clause 2 is inserted in the Bill because of the fact that other countries are going
to employ a similar principle in their industries, that is to say, the two-shift system.

Sir D. MACLEAN: That is not the reason the Minister gave.

Mr. BARNES: I do not know. At all events, I regret that the provision has been made. There are a large number of factories, about 250 I believe, now working under the system. But I agree with the hon. Member opposite. Surely we have not got to the point in this country where the reconstruction of our industrial activities is going to depend upon the further exploitation of this labour of women and young persons! After all, these are Committee points. I hope the House will not object to a Second Reading being given to the Bill on account of this particular proposal. For my part I would advise that we should strike out the reference to the Act of Parliament and the protection before the War. The Bill gives effect to the Berne Convention. Its effect in this country will not be very great, but it will bring other countries more into line with us, and will help to relieve manufacturers in this country of some of the strenuous foreign competition from which they have been suffering. It will make a great deal of difference in the working conditions of women and children and young persons generally throughout the world. For these reasons, as well as for the other reasons that I have mentioned, it will make a sensible advance towards the international regulation of labour conditions throughout the world. I hope therefore the House will give the Bill a Second Reading, and will reserve the right to deal in Committee with the points which have been raised by my hon. Friend opposite.

Sir D. MACLEAN: The right hon. Gentleman who has just spoken has a special and peculiar right to speak upon this Bill, because his work on the Peace Treaty, and also subsequently in connection with Part 13 of the Treaty under the heading of "Labour," will, I believe, be an enduring monument of his labours on behalf of industrial workers throughout the whole world. I welcome with the greatest confidence the main scheme of the Bill, especially Clause 1, Subsection (1), which says, "No child shall be employed in any industrial undertaking." That is a new charter of child-
hood which will, I hope, be given, though after too long a delay. I have had considerable experience of the hardships of child labour, not only in industrial, but also in rural conditions. Then there is Sub-section (2), which says:
No young person shall be employed in any industrial undertaking, except to the extent to which and in the circumstances in which such employment is permitted under the Conventions set out in Part 2 and Part 3 respectively of the Schedule to this Act.
That will make a very great difference. It gives encouragement and support to the international character of the Bill. In all probability we are the first country which is proposing to give legislative effect to what I have called this new "charter of childhood," and also of young persons and women, and I hope it will speedily be followed by all the countries which are signatories to the Peace Treaty. My one hope is far more in the workers of the world, industrially and politically, than in anything else. By the coming together of the working communities of the various countries very much can be done. I have very little hope of controversy from the top. It is in and through this common agreement of the workers of the world that I believe real progress can only be assured This is the first really international movement under Part 13 of the Peace Treaty, and I welcome it with great heartiness as the first instalment of its results. I would ask hon. Members to look at that part of the Treaty. It is worthy of the attention and study not only of those who directly represent Labour, but also of anybody else. In that Part 13 of the Peace Treaty there is a sentence saying that in any Acts or Regulations which are passed as a result of the adoption of any regulations of the draft Convention, there shall be no lessening of the protection offered by existing legislation to the workers concerned. Clause 2 of the Bill in my judgment is a direct contravention of that concluding sentence, and it is done specifically and by intention so that it lessens the protection given by existing legislation to the workers concerned.

Mr. BARNES: I think that Clause 3 overrules that entirely.

Sir D. MACLEAN: That may be so, but I have had an opportunity of looking at one or two sections of the Act referred to. The protection which is mentioned in Clause 2 is as follows:
Notwithstanding anything contained in the Factory and Workshop Act, 1910, it shall
be subject to any conditions prescribed by the Secretary of State to be lawful.
And so on to the end of the Clause. So far as I have had an opportunity of going into the Sections which are referred to, Sections 49 and 54 of the Act of 1901, I find that in Clause 49, with regard to the employment of women, there are certain provisions. As the right hon. Gentleman has just pointed out, there are now existing provisions against the working of women on overtime. Except on such Saturdays, or a day which is substituted for a Saturday, they cannot work more than from 6 O'clock in the morning until 8 o'clock at night, or from 7 o'clock in the morning until 9 o'clock at night. The proposals of this Bill, as far as I understand them, are that these hours are extended from 6 o'clock in the morning till 10 o'clock at night. Not only does that apply to women, but also to young persons, and young persons are defined as persons who are under 18 years of age. The right hon. Gentleman took a charitable view of that, and said it had some relation to Clause 3, but he could not have heard the statement of the hon. and gallant Gentleman who is in charge of the matter. He gave his reasons, which I suppose we must regard as arguments in favour of it. He gave no particulars of the evidence which would justify this inroad into the protection now existing under the Act of 1901, and we must remember that these relaxations which are introduced were brought in under the stress of war, and with the specific promise that when the war was over we should revert to the peace conditions. This proposal takes away this statutory protection. What was the evidence, where did it come from, what was the case that was made for this change? I think it is one of the most retrograde proposals that even this Government has made in the course of its Parliamentary record. They have slipped in such a Clause into such a Bill as this, a Bill which carries with it, generally, the sympathy and support of everybody, but there is no case made out for this little Clause 2 which we find in it. I warn hon. Members that it only shows what great care we must exercise, with regard to every Bill which is brought in, to see that these matters are thoroughly examined. My hon. and gallant Friend no doubt will tell us what is his case, because we want to know what the case is. It is suggested
that it is a matter for the Committee. It is a matter for the floor of the House. I am not going to vote against the Second Reading of this Bill, but I join heartily with what has already been said. There is no good messing about with Amendments of a Clause like that. Take it right out. That is the only way to deal with it.
There is another point. Only the year before last this House passed a great new charter of education. To my mind the most attractive part of it was the continuation school. We all thought that a new vista would be opened up to us, that the education of the young citizens would not cease at school age, but in a few years' time would be carried on up to 18 years of age, and give them leisure to study and develop both mind and body. It was not only on the educational side, but it was also on the physical side that the Minister of Education appealed to us. They propose here to give powers to the Secretary of State to enslave these young citizens once again, to chain them to the chariot wheel of selfish interests. It arouses within me feelings of indignation that a proposal of this kind should be propounded solemnly in a Bill like this after passing an Act like that. My hon. and gallant Friend passes on to us Bills which his Department think we will swallow, but I am quite sure that the House will not swallow this. Was the Minister of Education consulted? This strikes at the root of one of his main proposals. I feel quite certain that this Clause will have to be taken clean out. I feel that my hon. and gallant Friend did not fully appreciate what must have been the ordinary normal meaning of it. He said that this ought to be included in the Bill to protect the children concerned.

Major BAIRD: No. That is in a different part and has nothing to do with this.

Sir D. MACLEAN: I took down the hon. and gallant Member's words.

Major BAIRD: It was on a different Clause.

Sir D. MACLEAN: My hon. and gallant Friend said that Clause 3 has got to be read in connection with Clause 2—
Nothing in this Act shall apply to industrial undertakings in which only members of the same family are employed.
No parent has the right to enslave his child for the purposes of his own private purse. That child is the future citizen of the State. It is our business to see that children, no matter how employed, are fully protected, whether in the factory of private employers or in a factory run by a small family. The children of this country are far too precious to be treated in the way which this Bill proposes to sanction. I have spoken with a certain amount of heat, but with real feeling, and I hope that the House will take a strong view of this matter. But subject to that, I regard the Bill as a whole as marking a new and splendid advance along the road by which alone I believe the world can be saved, by the democracies of the world joining together for social purposes.

Major GRAY: This is a measure which would be received with approval were it not for this Clause to which reference has been made. I am amazed to find that a Government which set out with such worthy objects should have introduced such a Clause as this. It is one to which I, for one, shall have to offer strenuous opposition at every possible stage. I hope that before getting the Second Reading the Government will indicate that at the appropriate moment they are prepared to delete this Clause altogether. I do not desire to repeat what has been so well said by the right hon. Gentleman (Sir D. Maclean) with regard to this Clause. But to me it is appalling to imagine that a girl of fifteen may be employed under this Clause at ten o'clock at night on a shift of eight hours' duration, deprived of the protection already given by the Factory Act, which, I believe, has hitherto worked with general satisfaction. What does it mean with regard to the day continuation schools? A child of fifteen or sixteen is to attend for certain hours of the year day continuation schools. It has always been understood that those hours would be subtracted from the hours of employment. Apparently under this Clause the employer could make an arrangement whereby the hours lost to industry by attending that industrial school would be made up in the industry after seven or eight o'clock at night. That would create an intolerable position. I am informed that the operatives of Lancashire will resist this Clause to
the very utmost, and I am delighted to hear it.

Mr. SUGDEN: And employers also.

Major GRAY: I am glad to hear that, but I am particularly glad to hear that operatives will resist it, because in the past they have not been too sensitive in the matter of the employment of children, but have been very largely sinners. In the mills operatives themselves employed their own boys and girls. I am glad to find that they have reached that stage at which they will not tolerate the imposition of this Clause, which will cut into one of the main provisions of the Education Act of 1918. I fail to see how it can be justified. I am certain that the industries of this country can be carried on without employing boys and girls of tender age at labour until ten o'clock at night. I am certain that the industries of this country are not in such a position that they require this to be done. This is unnecessary. It is dangerous, and it ought to be dropped without hesitation.
There is one Clause in the Schedule as to which I ask permission to say one word. It is to me a matter of supreme delight to find that there is at last a Clause in the Bill which abolishes half-time employment in the factories and the workshops of this country. No child under the age of fourteen is to be employed as from the 1st January next. When I recall the fact that nearly thirty years ago, as a Lobbyist outside, I took part in the defeat of a Conservative Government on a Factory Act raising the age for half-time employment from 10 to 11—we managed in this House by a majority of eleven votes—and when I remember the steady progress of legislation, gradually diminishing the number of these poor little half-timers, the House will perhaps understand how heartily I rejoice at finding here a Clause which will abolish them at once and for ever. A child under the age of 14 will be free from employment, as the right hon. Gentleman opposite said just now. He will be free to attend school, but, unfortunately, he cannot be compelled to do so, and I desire to draw the attention of the Minister in charge of this Bill to a word or two in the last Section referring to the date at which this shall come into operation. I want to point
out to him the somewhat peculiar position which will arise under this measure. A child under 14 may not be employed in any industry, and under the Education Act of 1918 that child may not be compelled to remain in school to the age of 14, until a certain period after the close of this War, and it may well be, therefore, that there will be a period when the child cannot be employed and yet cannot be required to attend school.
That will be a very unfortunate state of affairs. We do not want boys and girls of 13 running about the streets and lanes. If they cannot be employed they should be in school. They can be if the local bye-laws provide, but they cannot be compelled to attend by Statute. This House purposely put in the Education Act of 1918, section (52), I believe, a proviso that that Clause should not come into operation until after the close of the War. We know what the phrase, "Close of the War" means, and I venture to suggest that this matter is one of more than passing interest. In determining the date at which this shall come into operation, there should be co-operation with the Board of Education, so that when the child cannot go to work he or she shall be required to attend school. We do not want a number of these young persons running the streets. We know too well that if a child is not acquiring good it is acquiring evil very rapidly. Nothing could be worse for the future than that the child should be free from school attendance at the age of 13 and have a year's idleness before being allowed to enter into employment. He cannot be required to attend the day continuation school, because the Act does not insist on that until he is 14 years of age, so that he will be free from attendance at the day school although he cannot go into employment. Therefore in fixing the date of the operation of this Clause it is necessary that agreement should be reached with the Board of Education on the subject. I venture to hope some steps may be taken to provide that the date at which a child may be required to attend school may be accelerated—that something may be done to modify the provision in the Education Act of 1918, especially now that we are about to provide that that child shall not enter employment before the age of 14. I will not attempt to discuss this from the international point of view. It is sufficient for me that this will be of the utmost
value to women and young persons and children throughout the whole industrial areas of this country. It is a great step forward. It is a matter for congratulation that the Government should have brought in their Bill, but I urge them not to spoil the object they have in view by retaining this most obnoxious Clause. If they will only take it out of the Bill I feel sure the House will be ready to carry the measure through all its stages without much delay.

Mr. GRIFFITHS: I have much pleasure in welcoming several Clauses in this Bill, because it is the creation of international social and industrial law. But this second Clause is to me a very pernicious Clause. We who are acquainted with our industrial history know that it has been the business of this House to reduce the hours of employment so far as children are concerned. From the time of the late Lord Shaftesbury, who did so much work for the improvement of the Factory Acts of this country, we have always been endeavouring to reduce the hours of labour of children. This has been done by Conservative Governments and by Liberal Governments, but here we have a Coalition Government introducing a Bill containing a Clause which extends those hours of labour beyond what is laid down in the Factory Acts of 1901. I should like to know who has approached the Government in reference to this Clause. I represent the continuous trades in the country—the steel trade and the tin-plate trade, where three shifts are worked. I would ask the hon. Gentleman who introduced the Bill whether the employers or trade union leaders or representatives of the trade unions have approached him on the matter of the extension that is asked for. I can assure him that so far as these trades are concerned, the employers and the representatives of the men will give him evry assistance possible in order to put this Bill into operation, with the exception of Clause 2, which is so pernicious a Clause. I know we have some difficulty, because in those trades which work continuously lads often are employed to work levers and other light machinery in different departments, but I can give the hon. Gentleman my assurance that we will assist him in every way in our power to pass this Bill if he will withdraw Clause 2. I am expressing the opinion not only of the leaders of the men, but of a
large number of employers who look at this matter from the human standpoint. This is a human question. The Prime Minister has said that you cannot get an A1 nation out of a C3 population, and legislation of this kind is not going to give us an A1 population. It will destroy the physique of these boys and girls, who will be the men and women of the future. I was very pleased to hear the right hon. Gentleman, the Member for Gorbals (Mr. Barnes), taking part in the Debate, because he is speaking from first-hand knowledge. He attended the Conference, and I am sure he will agree with me that, if, instead of this Clause, one of its decisions were introduced into this Bill, whereby the employment of women immediately before and after the birth of a child would be prohibited, and also provision made for the woman during that period, it would be more in line with the recommendations of the International Conference than this black spot upon the Bill. I assure the introducer of the Bill that in Committee we shall fight this Clause, not only line by line, but word by word. We are determined that it shall not be included in this Bill. I hope that the hon. Gentleman, when he replies, will let us know what trades he is referring to. I believe that some of the employers who have had this advantage of extension of hours during the War period, are now endeavouring to keep up those long hours in some of the factories, and to exploit these girls and boys. I hope the expression of opinion that has been given from both sides of the House against this Clause will be taken into consideration, and that the Government will withdraw it even before we go into Committee on the Bill.

Mr. SUGDEN: I wish to join in the congratulations that have been offered to the representatives of the Government who have introduced this Measure. It is one of the fruits of victory, equally with those of national life and opportunity of freedom resulting from the heroism of our soldiers and sailors. To my mind the time has come when the great industrial problems of the world may be considered, not only in their bearings on finance, but in their bearings on the well-being of the nations concerned. The heroism and sacrifice of the War days of the men and women of this and other nations are proving worthy, and
will bear fruit, worthy not only of this country, but of all the great civilisations of Europe. Therefore I join with others in welcoming some of the first-fruits of the great internationalisation of the consideration of all sections and strata of the communities in respect of the bread-and-butter existence, for it is that major portion of our existence which has its very important bearings on our life. When that has been said, however, one feels that it is vital that something also should be done in respect of the obnoxious Clause, namely Clause 2, that has been referred to by every speaker to-night (save only the representative of the Government who introduced the Measure). Something has been said as to its objectionable bearing in regard to education. The hon. and gallant Gentleman (Major Gray), who always speaks so effectively and thoroughly on matters of education, has dealt with that. Something has been said by a representative of a textile employés' association in respect to one section of industry, against the night labour of women and children; but I would say that no section of any industry, and whether it be that of employer or employed, accepts this Clause with any degree of complacency. The great employers of to-day, equally with the employés, desire to elevate the craftsmanship of industry to its highest ideal of altruism in regard to output and the great and wonderful effect which it has on the moral well-being and character, as well as on the social well-being of the people—the proper and legitimate opportunities of industry and labour. This is impossible if the bad old days of night labour of women and children be allowed. I suggest, therefore, that the Minister, in bringing in this Bill, has done so neither in consultation with, nor with the approval of, either the Minister of Health or the Minister of Education.
We in Lancashire know to our cost to what a terrible degree the ravages of consumption and other fell diseases have been with us as a result of the tremendous speed lust which obtained in those essential industries which go to make up our county life. The Minister of Health is doing all that is possible in regard to dealing with tuberculosis, nerve diseases, and other ills which arise more especially by reason of the type of the industrial life of the County Palatine. All that the Minister of Health is doing, however, in respect to the eradication of these fell
diseases—the white scourge, and others in our midst—will be completely nullified if this objectionable Clause be permitted to remain. There are some others here besides myself who have had the honour to lead men in the field, and when we know and consider, as we are compelled to do, the medical records of the men we had the great honour to lead from Lancashire, we know that they were the products of the C.3 variety in physique, but in spirit were gloriously A.1. Americanization, this speed lust in industry, has had many terrible effects on such physique. I join with those who have already spoken, and say without any hesitancy that whether we come from the employing class or the employé class, we shall certainly fight this Clause. I want it to be remembered that all is being done that can be done in respect of proper conditions of labour. We have great welfare organisations in the cotton industry and in many other industries.
An hon. Member has suggested that there may have been some improper motive in regard to the employment of women in industry, but I would beg to remind him that industry has not always been in the profitable condition in which it is to-day. There was a time when it was vital, if the home was to be kept in that condition in which it was possible for men, women and children to live respectably and honourably, that the woman should take her part in earning. Those days are passing. I hope and trust that they are passed, and that it may be possible for the woman to remain in her proper sphere in the home—the guidance of the young life in its future. It is to her, more than to anyone else, that the training of the citizens of the future will be due. I give it as an economic proposition which cannot be controverted that the hours of fatigue which will obtain in regard to night labour—shift labour—will nullify the economic considerations which are held to be useful and necessary, and which perforce has supposed the necessity of this Clause. We shall not obtain the output and the necessary speeding up which it is suggested will be obtained by its application. Therefore I say that while we folks in the northern counties by the quality of our craftsmanship and work have led many different sections of industry in regard to world commerce, quality of goods and
competition (and I speak with the knowledge of many types of continental labour) I say without hesitation that English labour, in its high quality of production and idealism of craftsmanship among the rank and file of the employés, will be lessened, prostituted and depreciated if these hours of labour be permitted to obtain. Whilst I welcome the Bill as a great advance in the civilisation of industry, and as one of the great fruits of the great War, the health, the moral and the intellectuality of the people will suffer if this objectionable Clause be included. I appeal to the Government to withdraw it, and to permit us to give unanimous support to the Second Reading.

Mr. MYERS: The general principle that is embodied in the Bill is worthy of commendation. The trouble is that some of its provisions do not carry out that intention. Clause 1, which provides that no child under 14 years of age shall be employed in any industrial undertaking, will, I think, meet with unanimous approval, and it is an indication as to how far we have gone since the days of the historic Debates when objection was taken to interference with the hours of labour of women, children and young persons. But if we believe, when we have accepted this Clause, that we have said the last word upon the question, we shall be very much mistaken. When it is put into operation, it will leave behind it, in some sections of the community, very great hardship. Those who have served upon education authorities are familiar with the painful interviews we often have with parents who are counting the days till the time will come when their child can be utilised as an asset to the family income. In families where the bread winner is incapacitated or has been taken away, and there is a widow with a small family, it is unfortunate, but it is true, that the child has to be looked upon as being the medium of a contribution towards the family income. While we can accept this Clause with unanimous approval so far as the child is concerned, its operation will leave behind it the necessity for ameliorative measures. The time is long overdue for some principle of mothers' pensions to be instituted in order to make provision for a woman which will permit her children to go to school and take those advantages which are the child's due without penalising the woman and
the rest of the family, and in those cases where the breadwinner is incapacitated and not able to earn what is recognised as the standard wage, some measure of assistance ought to be instituted. Any Act of Parliament which imposes a hardship in this direction ought to make some provision for ameliorative measures to meet that hardship, and matters are very real and pressing in this direction.
10.0 P.M.
I join with hon. Members who have expressed their objection to Clause 2. My view of the matter is that no factory ought to be permitted to work 16 hours on end, for the vitiated atmosphere of a factory or workshop which is permitted to work continuously for that length of time imposes a disadvantage upon those people who go into it at the latter part of the day. From the point of view of health conditions, no undertaking ought to be permitted to work that length of time. There ought to be a break for sanitary and health reasons. The Bill defines "young person" as one between 14 and 18 years of age, and it stipulates that night work shall not be permitted to young persons of that age, but it makes certain exceptions. Outside this House for a good many years I have stood at all times for sex equality, economic, industrial and political, and since coming into this House I have made some little contribution towards that point of view, and I have nothing to repent. But I believe there are exceptions even to that principle. When I turn to the exceptions this Bill has instituted, it is with some measure of regret. I find that the exceptions to night work for young persons are in the manufacture of iron and steel and in glass works. I have not had much experience of the operations of the manufacture of iron and steel, but I have had considerable experience of the responsibilities and duties inside a glass works, and not only from the point of view of young persons, but of females of any age whatever, the glass trade is not an occupation in which female labour ought to be permitted, and I am astonished that this Bill makes the exception, because the manufacture of glass has to be continued through the night. While the Bill will not permit young persons to be employed in night work in various departments of industry, the exceptions that it makes is in the
most undesirable occupations for female labour to be employed in. I hope the Department which is in charge of the Bill will investigate the matter from this point of view. Further, those of us who have had actual experience of night employment can bear testimony to the fact that there is no comparison between day and night work, even in the same occupation. The expenditure of physical energy working on a night turn is infinitely greater than in the day time. If it operates in that direction so far as male labour is concerned, what must be the pressure upon female labour between 16 and 18 years of age being permitted to work inside these factories at night time? One of the great advantages of the Bill is that it regularises conditions in our own country. At the present time unanimity does not prevail. In the West Riding towns, in the textile trades, we know that half-time labour has been fairly general in one town, while in other towns in the immediate neighbourhood, where the conditions of employment are practically the same, half-time labour has been non-existent. Taking different parts of the country, and making comparisons, we meet with the fact that there is a complete lack of unanimity in working conditions from the point of view of young persons and child labour.
I join in welcoming this Bill because an attempt is being made to regularise the international aspect of labour conditions. We are all familiar with the objections that have been made by employers of labour as to the unfair effect of wage conditions in other places. That point of view has often been overdone. Employers in other countries have played off one country against another, and we must, having regard to the circumstances of the case, recognise that there is something in the declaration. We know that to-day, so far as information is available, the conditions prevailing in India and Japan in many industries are typical of the worst features of the factory system when it originally prevailed in this country, and if anything can be done to equalise the conditions from the point of view of a similar industry here and the same industry elsewhere, it will be a great achievement. There are other encouraging indications in this development. If the machinery of the League of
Nations can be utilised to balance, equalise, and make uniform working and labour conditions over large areas in the world, it will give a special proof of its utility in other directions. Something has been said as to the perfection of the child and woman life of the country, and the Bill is entitled to a hearty welcome on that account. The economic changes that are taking place in this country and in the world at large are making that very largely necessary. In days gone by, in the days of hand labour, the labour power was the first element in production, and the tools and the implements took second place; but in the growing economic developments we are now finding that the mechanism, the tools and implements, are the first element in production, and the labour power becomes the secondary element. As that line of development proceeds there is an ever-increasing inclination to use the child and woman life of the nation purely as the minders of machines when strong physical labour power is no longer necessary. With the developments in that direction the protection of the child and woman life of the country becomes more and more necessary. Subject to the conditions to which I have referred being improved and adjusted, including the question of night labour for women of any age, we on this side of the House will give our hearty approval to the general principles of the Bill, and will encourage it in every stage until it passes into law.

Lieut.-Colonel ALLEN: I think it is only right that I should say on behalf of Ireland, that we welcome this Bill. I do so both from the standpoint of an employer in the linen trade, the sister industry to the cotton industry. I welcome it also on behalf of the employed, because I believe it conduces to contentment amongst employers and employed. I am glad the hon. and gallant Gentleman has referred to the consideration of this Bill along with the education question, because in Ireland our compulsory Education Act is somewhat different to the English Act. In Ireland it is possible for a child to leave school provided it has reached a certain standard quite apart from the age of the child, and provided it has reached the sixth standard it may leave school, and it is possible for the child in Ireland to leave school at the age of 12 years. The point comes in, what
has the child to do meantime when it is not compelled to attend school between 12 and 14 years of age. I ask the House to go into this question very closely so far as Ireland is concerned, and the education authorities, because something must be done to make the two Acts coincide.
With regard to Clause 2, as an employer I have had experience of women going to work very early in the day, at 6 o'clock in the morning in very cold weather. For some years past that has ceased, and as an employer I wish to say I never want to see it again. Plenty of work can be produced in hours other than in the very early morning, and I think we may consider, after what has been said on this point, that Clause 2 is as good as dead. There is another matter which I hope will be made perfectly clear. Clause 1 says that no child shall be employed in any industrial undertaking, and the expression means a person under the age of 14 in Clause 4. If, however, you turn to Article 2 of Part I. of the Schedule, you find it is provided that:
Children under the age of 14 years shall not be employed or work in any public or private industrial undertaking, or in any branch thereof, other than an undertaking in which only members of the same family are employed.
I should like to understand what that means. No child is to be employed under 14 years according to Clause 1, but in the Article which I have quoted, it is suggested that children under the age of 14 may be employed in public or private industrial undertakings where other members of the same family are employed. Perhaps the hon. and gallant Gentleman, when he comes to reply, will make that clear, because I do not understand it. I join with all who have spoken in heartily welcoming the Bill. So far as education in Ireland is concerned, we have this Bill hanging over our heads. We want co-ordination between the primary schools and the evening technical schools, and if we are to have that co-ordination, it must be prefaced by the dropping of Clause 2 of this Bill.

Mr. GREENWOOD: I have nothing to say about this Bill except in regard to Clause 2. As one of those poor half-timers to whom reference has been made, I wish to express strong disapproval of this Clause. I cannot understand any Government introducing such a Clause in any Bill. I believe that the Government
have honestly tried to bring in legislation which will be for the real benefit of the people. But this Clause would be a retrograde step. I started work as a half-timer on the day when I was 10 years of age. That was about 35 years ago, and on that day, as I was going to the mill—it was at 6 o'clock in the morning—it struck me that it was a very early time for children to start work—I made up my mind that some day I would be a Member of Parliament, and that if possible I would bring in, or help to bring in, legislation which would alter the hours of labour in the cotton trade. Since then it has been my privilege to decide what sort of labour I would employ, and since I have had the option I have never employed half-time labour in any mill with which I have been connected.
I would like to tell occupants of the Treasury Bench a few of the things I saw during the time I was going to the mill as early as 4.30 or 5 o'clock in the morning. It was only when the hours of labour were altered, about six or eight months ago, that I was able to have my breakfast at home, except on Sundays or holidays, and I feel that there can be no Member of the Government—certainly not the hon. and gallant Gentleman who introduced the Bill—who has any experience of what takes place in connection with these early morning starts. I do not know what has been the business experience of the Parliamentary Secretary, or where he started work, but I do not think he has worked for 35 years in a mill from 5.30 in the morning to 5.30 in the evening.
In those days I witnessed some very sad sights. One of the saddest was the sight of a woman taking a bundle from one house to another. I have seen that sort of thing at 4.30 in the morning. Starting work at 6 o'clock means that some people have to leave their homes, as I had to do, at 4.30. That little bundle was taken to another house seven or eight streets away. Snow was falling on the ground. The bundle was a little baby. We do not want to see anything of that sort again. In another case, about 5 o'clock one morning, I saw a poor fellow collapse in the snow. We carried him home and up the stairs, and he died as we got him to the top step. It is exposure in the early mornings that is so dangerous to men who are weak, and more especially to women and children. I wonder when
I see a Clause like this who has advised the Government to put it in the Bill. They have not asked the representatives of the employers, and the representatives of the employés tell me they heard nothing about it. We welcome the Bill as regards the other matters which indicate international agreement on very important points, but as regards Clause 2 I am certain if the Government had experience of this question they would not dream of proposing it. Unless they promise to delete Clause 2, I shall certainly vote against the Government, and I shall never give a vote with greater pleasure.

Mr. LAWSON: I welcome this Bill which in its main principles is the result of the work of a Conference of International Labour Organisations of the League of Nations, and at least that is an assurance that the League of Nations is alive. As far as that side of the question is concerned it will make for quick results and very good results too. When we consider some of the conditions in some of the countries of the world under which people are working and the problems that arise therefrom, we are sometimes appalled at the possible results those conditions, rates of pay, hours and so on, are likely to have upon labour conditions in this country unless something is done to alter them. In so far as we have conferences of this kind facing these problems so it seems to me we are going to take one of the most effective steps in regularising conditions throughout the world and hindering backward nations, if we may so call them, from pulling down the standard of life of other peoples. I was interested in the speech of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Gorbals (Mr. Barnes) because it was a first-hand recital of what took place at Washington and very enlightening. I was sorry to find from his remarks, as I understood them, that these conditions are not binding upon the Government, although they have taken it upon themselves as a matter of honour that they ought to fulfil the conditions laid down there. As to Clause 2 it seems to me that this is too good a Bill to have such a Clause in it. It is really a pity that what would have been one undiluted stream of praise to-night for this Bill should be altered or interrupted by such a Clause as that. I am not living in an area where we have women and children
working in double shifts, but I am living in an area where I have seen men and boys working from one shift to two shifts and three shifts.
I have seen the social life of that district broken up, I have seen education, on its evening-class side, almost swept out of existence, and I have seen the question of production tested at first hand on the dual and the triple shift plan. The effect on the social life has been, both with the men and boys, and the women who remain at home, to make an intense bitterness in their minds. I was very pleased, by the way, to hear the hon. Member for Stockport (Mr. Greenwood), as an employer of labour, make a straight declaration against this Clause, but I can understand employers of labour coming along and thinking they are not going to take advantage of the workers at all, but that they might possibly increase output, and give a bonus or something to the workers. I can even imagine workers being taken by a bribe for the time being, but the inevitable result, when this kind of thing gets into operation, is to set a spirit abroad among the workers that certainly does not help, either economically, industrially, or socially. On the education side, it must be quite apparent that it is impossible. It broke our evening-class down in the North of England almost completely, and there is no possibility of continued education under a scheme of this kind. Take the production side. It is a well-known fact, after the experience we have had during the past few years, that you do not get as much with the triple shift as you do with the double shift. I have seen that, only within a few months of coming into this House. I saw the three-shift go into the two-shift, and the latter increased the output over the former. That may be a strange result to the outsider, but to those who know the conditions and psychology of working-class life, it is no strange result at all, and I can imagine that even if you were to get an increased output with the two shifts upon the single shift, you would get such a state of acerbity of mind, you would get such a friction produced, that in the long run the single shift would prove more useful than the double shift.
I think the hon. and gallant Gentleman who introduced the Bill said there were something like 25,000 workers concerned in this two-shift system. I could have
understood it if there had been a Clause limiting the period of the factories that now work on two shifts, in order to give them time to tide over and get back to the one shift. We have got to face facts, and we know that we have got to face them in a rough, common-sense way; but, as drawn, the Clause will inevitably lead people to take advantage of it. Could the hon. and gallant Gentleman distribute a White Paper showing where these 25,000 workers are, because it seems to me rather an abnormal figure, and how many of them are men and how many women? My final word is that it would be a pity, indeed, to spoil this Bill. It is a Bill that encourages one, at any rate, although it comes from a Government with which one seldom agrees. It encourages one because it comes from the labour representatives of all parts of the world, as a regular part of the League of Nations, and I should like to join with those who ask that the Clause be withdrawn, so that we may go home, at all events, satisfied that there has been a definite piece of constructive work, and an addition to our national life that will have good results upon the population.

Lieut.-Colonel FREMANTLE: I only want to endorse the obsequies of Clause 2 from the point of view of public health. We have already heard a good deal on the subject, and I only wish to refer to one particular side of health that has not been before the House so far, and evidently was not the point of view of those who favour the Bill. If you are going to permit the employment of women in the factories up to ten in the evening under the second Schedule, that will be a constant trouble in trying to get back any kind of home life, which is at the bottom of healthy homes, for which we are constantly working and speaking. That is a side that has not been very much advanced hitherto, but it goes to the basis of our difficulties when we are looking into the preventable mortality of infants. We notice that it is so quite as much in industrial towns which are magnificent pioneers in sanitary organisation and administration, as in those which are absolutely backward. And why? For the very reason that the mothers cannot attend to their domestic duties and look after the children when they are engaged industrially. It is quite
well to say that, under the modern industrial conditions that have developed, it is necessary in certain communities for the mothers to have the opportunity of being employed in factories, but I hope some day it will not be necessary for that to happen in any class. That, however, is the vision of the future. At the present time, we must recognise it is necessary in certain industrial communities, but to encourage their employment in the late shifts up to 10 o'clock in the evening goes absolutely to the root of any possibility of either attending to the child at that time in the evening or of making anything like the semblance of a home in family life.
Again and again we are met in public health, and in gigantic problems of the recruitment of the nation, with this fact, that slowly and gradually, but surely, everything is tending to undermine family life, and we want to go against any legislation that is tending further to break up family life. The possibility that is opening to the working classes now of increased leisure must more especially tend to opening the way to some kind of family-life towards the end of the day. What kind of family life is possible when the womenfolk are employed to ten in the evening? I say it is that later employment in the working day which we want to prevent both in the case of the mothers and also the girls. I can only see two objections. One is the mere industrial one, which, I think, is obviously the one that inspired the Clause in the Bill, and I have not the least doubt that, in certain industries, you can produce more if you are able to have the women employed in two shifts in this way. That I rule out entirely from the point of view of public health.
The other objection is from the point of view of those who say—and this has got to be met—we must have equality between men and women in every respect. These are already starting an agitation and correspondence which we Members are getting in order to enable them to do away with every kind of difference between men and women, to maintain this principle that they have established. I do not think the future health and happiness of the country, or of any country, is compatible with equality of that sort between the sexes. They can be equal in
one way. They cannot be equal in their attainments and in certain methods of life and methods of employment. It is totally unnatural for women to be employed night and day in the factories. It is merely owing to the abnormal developments of the industrial position in the last century—a development that, I hope, we shall be able gradually to correct, but only gradually—that the women of the present generation have been turned away from home life, and I hope she may be able to return there. Therefore, I am utterly opposed to Clause 2 in the name of public health, and I hope the Government will either withdraw it or else will be beaten.

Mr. R. McLAREN: I welcome this Bill very heartily as being one which, I think, must commend itself to the common-sense of this House. In looking through the Bill, however, I observe it is in some respects retrograde. For instance, I find that in Clause (1) no child shall be employed in any industrial undertaking. That means a young person under 14 years of age. Strange though it may appear, at the present time in Scotland no one can be employed under 14 years of age by reason of the operation of the Education Acts, and it is incumbent upon certain employers in certain industries—in the collieries—to see that a boy is not employed, underground at any rate, until he attains 16. I want to know upon what grounds this Sub-section (1) has been drawn. If those who drew up the Bill understood clearly how Scotland stands in the matter, I think they would have put this age a little higher than even 14. In Scotland the employers know it very well that in no industry can any young person now be employed under 14 years of age. Sub-section (4) of Section (1) speaks about the Coal Mines Act, 1911. I find that in one of the Schedules no women can be employed during the night, and no young person for certain hours of the night. I am at a loss to understand why those who drew up this Bill should insert what is already in other Acts. Like other speakers I think it is a pity that this Bill, which is a good Bill, should be hampered by Clause 2, which is a very retrograde step. I cannot understand for the life of me why employers in England should for a moment hesitate to withdraw the question of the half-timers. In Scotland, I am glad to say, we have no such thing.
We seem to be much further ahead in employment in Scotland than in England, and I am very much surprised that the Government in drawing up this Bill, did not look ahead. After all, what is good for Scotland cannot be very bad for England and Ireland! It would be a pity that the Bill should be spoiled by a Clause which everybody who has studied the question will agree ought not to be in it at all, and I hope that the Government in Committee will withdraw it altogether. The Bill is to be welcomed in many respects. It is good that there should be uniformity in the various countries in the matter of child labour. I was very much surprised to hear what the hon. Member opposite said about half-timers. We have had no experience of that kind in Scotland, and I hope that we never shall have. It is a good thing to do away with half-timers altogether, and if anything has to be done in the matter of double shifts, some other way may be found out of the difficulty. After all, the strength of this country rests very much upon the life of the people, and once you begin to disturb home life you are doing a wrong thing to the people and to the country. I trust that we shall do our best to help our country. The Bill must commend itself, not only to employers, but also to employés, and, if Clause 2 be taken out of it and certain Amendments are made in Committee, I have no reason but to think that it will be a good thing for the workpeople of this country to realise that the House of Commons are studying the interests of the people and of the country in bringing in a Bill to ensure that children and women shall not be overburdened with work. Already there exist Clauses whereby children under a certain age cannot be employed in the mines, and young people under a certain age are not permitted to work with wagons. If any boy under a certain age undertakes to move wagons at all, it is a breach of the law. I heartily support the Bill and shall vote for it if it goes to a Division.

Mr. ROBERTSON: I welcome the Bill in its international aspect, and as far as the abolition of half-timers is concerned. I can never understand why young children are compelled to work and there are strong men and women allowed to live idle and luxurious lives. I want to raise the question of education. I have had no experience of half-
time, but I have had considerable experience of young lads leaving employment and continuing their education. This Bill cuts into the Education Act. You want to continue the education of boys and girls who leave school at the age of fourteen, and naturally they need some encouragement. If you put any barrier in their way, then they will not improve their education. The difficulties which certain people have overcome with regard to education are sometimes pointed out. I know how very determined many people are to improve their education. Bright lads and bright young women can always look after themselves. It is much more important to raise the general level of education. I hope sincerely that the Government will consider the question from the standpoint of protecting the opportunities for education, and if for nothing else that they will withdraw this Clause.

Captain W. BENN: There is one point which I think has not been referred to. The only argument that can be brought forward in support of Clause 2 is that it may be necessary to equip the Government temporarily with powers to enlarge or relax restrictions of the Factory and Workshops Acts until we are nearer peace conditions, and until the extraordinary conditions of War time pass away. That, I conceive, is the only argument that can be advanced in support of a Clause which is universally condemned, and which is very retrograde in character. I would remind the hon. and gallant Gentleman (Major Baird) that under one of the Regulations under the Defence of the Realm Act—I think 6A, which we discussed at great length in this House—he has the power to relax restrictions of the Factories and Workshops Act for any factories where it is deemed to be desirable. Is not that sufficient power for him to have? That will remain in his hands until the end of the War, which may be many months away. It may be a year hence before the Order in Council is made terminating the War. With those powers surely he is sufficiently armed to deal with the special circumstances that may arise. That being so, I think that it will meet the wishes of the House, which have been so strongly expressed, if he will intimate now—because this is the last opportunity which we shall have in this House, as we shall not all be on the Select Com-
mittee—that the Government intend to withdraw this, which is the one objectionable Clause in an otherwise most admirable Bill.

Major BAIRD: With the leave of the House I may say a word or two about Clause 2. About the rest of the Bill there seems to be no criticism. The reasons which the hon. and gallant Gentleman advances for withdrawing this Clause are, I think, reasons for allowing it to remain in the Bill until the Committee and the Report Stage have taken place. It is obvious that unless arguments be adduced during those stages, there is no chance of the House, either in Committee or on Report, accepting this Clause, but I cannot escape from this, that there are 26,000 women and 3,600 young persons who, I am informed, are employed in consequence of 250 orders which have been issued under the Defence of the Realm Act Regulation, to which the hon. and gallant Gentleman has referred. I do not think that it is reasonable without detailed discussion—after all there has been no discussion of this Clause in detail—for the Government to undertake here and now to drop this Clause.

Captain BENN: But you have 6A.

Major BAIRD: I would suggest that the proper course is to allow the Second Reading to be taken, and of course, if the Government be unable to remove by its arguments the strong opposition which has been manifested to this Clause, it is perfectly clear that the Clause cannot stand. I do not think it follows that something short of the complete elimination of it may not commend itself to the judgment of the House. Although a good deal has been said in condemnation of the Clause, it should be remembered that a Committee set up by the Ministry of Reconstruction to report on the employment of women after the War—a very strong Committee, containing several very experienced women—definitely stated that the question of continuing the power of allowing employment on the two shift system, as far as they were concerned, was one that would require consideration not only in respect of the transition period, but after. That is a strong recommendation by people who have gone into this question from the women's point of view.

Mr. A. DAVIES: (Clitheroe)
What is their definition of the system of labour? Does it correspond with the hours in the Clause from 6 a.m. till 10 p.m.?

Major BAIRD: Without examination, I cannot definitely answer that question. I think they were referring to a particular kind of employment. But I do not want to argue the point now. It is quite clear that the House is strongly opposed to the Clause, but I would ask it to give us the Second Reading, on the understanding that we will consider this carefully. My right hon. Friend is going to receive a deputation on this Clause, and will discuss it with those mostly concerned. Bearing in mind the fact that it is only three months since the whole of this question was discussed in the House, which, after hearing the arguments of hon. Members possessed of first-hand information on the subject, agreed that it was not possible to stop suddenly this form of employment, I hope the House mill agree that it is a matter which does require further consideration. The hon. Member for Chester-le-Street (Mr. Lawson) asked for details with regard to the people who are employed. I will do my best to obtain that information for him. It is obvious that the House will not consent to the embodiment of this Clause in the Bill unless it is in possession of very much more detailed information than it is possible to give in the course of a Second Reading Debate. I hope, therefore, that the House will give us an opportunity of keeping this Clause in the Bill, certainly until the Report stage, and not ask me now to give a pledge which I might have to withdraw. We will carefully go into the question, and secure every possible form of information which Members may require, in order to come to a final decision.

Major BARNES: Will the Government leave this Clause to the free decision of the House?

Major BAIRD: I hope my hon. and gallant Friend will not read more into my speech than the words I used justify. We undertake to collect such information as we think may persuade the House to accept the Clause, or which, on the other hand, may make the House persuade us to withdraw it.

PUBLIC LIBRARIES (IRELAND) BILL.

Order for Second Reading read.

The ATTORNEY - GENERAL for IRELAND (Mr. Henry): I beg to move, "That the Bill be now read a Second time."
This is a short Bill, and its object is to enable local authorities in Ireland to raise, for the purposes of public libraries, instead of 1d. in the £, as the law now stands, a sum of 3d. It is supported by the Corporations of Dublin and Belfast and a number of other local authorities. A similar Bill has been passed for England, and I am informed by the Lord Advocate that he proposes to introduce a similar Bill on Monday with regard to Scotland. The 3d. is to be raised without any consent on the part of the Local Government Board, and an additional 3d. may be raised with the consent of the Board. The English Act provides for an unlimited power to raise money for this purpose.

Captain W. BENN: I beg to second the Motion.
I have no objection to giving these large powers to local authorities in Ireland, but, owing to the complete dream in which the Government is living with regard to Ireland, how many of these authorities will take any notice of it? How many of these authorities have declared their allegiance to the Irish Republic? How many have refused to pay even the sums levied upon them under the Malicious Injuries Act? What control has the Irish Administration over these public authorities in Ireland? None at all. They all have Republican flags over their public buildings, and are in open revolt. It is in order to draw attention to that that second the Motion.

SHERIFFS (IRELAND) BILL.

Order for Second Reading read.

Mr. HENRY: I beg to move, "That the Bill be now read a Second time."
At present the Under-Sheriff is appointed by the High Sheriff for the period of his term of office, which is one year. Although in practice the Under-Sheriff, who is a man of experience, is usually kept on by the High Sheriff, it is entirely at the latter's option. In this Bill, which is based on the findings of a Viceregal Commission, presided over by the Recorder of Dublin, we propose that the Lord Lieutenant shall appoint the Under-Sheriff, and that he shall be a permanent official. We also propose that, instead of certain fees and allowances that are now paid by the Treasury, the Under-Sheriff shall be paid half by the local authority and half by the Treasury. All the Members for Ireland are agreeable to the proposal, and the cost is small. At present the Under-Sheriffs receive in fees more in some cases, than it is proposed to pay under this Bill. The Under-Sheriff is a responsible official, discharging important duties, and it is only reasonable that he should have some security of tenure, in order that men of experience and position may be obtained.

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: This Bill is rather more serious than the one we have just passed, because I understand it puts some small charge on the Treasury. We shall have to pay something. At first I thought it would effect a saving to the Treasury, but from what the right hon. Gentleman said I think it will be a very small increase. I consider this will be quite useless to three-fourths of Ireland. If the Bill at present before the House was seriously meant, or if it had any chance of success—I am sorry to say I am afraid it has not—this would be a very right subject for the legislative body proposed to be set up in Ireland to deal with. I think it might very well be left to them; but as I believe that Bill will not be applied for reasons which have been given again and again, quite honest reasons, from each side of the House, I consider that this is a sheer waste of time. The courts functioning in Ireland do not acknowledge allegiance to His Majesty. This is a very tragic state of affairs, but we must recognise things as they are. It is only a waste of the time of the House.

WAR PENSIONS [PAYMENTS].

Considered in Committee.

[Mr. JAMES HOPE in the Chair.]

Resolved,
That it is expedient to make provision, out of moneys provided by Parliament, for the payment of any forfeited pension which may be restored under any Act of the present Session relating to War Pensions and of any allowances payable during the continuance of any Pension so restored."—[Mr. Baldwin.]

Resolution to be reported upon Monday next.

BLIND PERSONS [PENSIONS AND EXPENSES].

Considered in Committee.

[Mr. JAMES HOPE in the Chair.]

Motion made, and Question proposed,
That it is expedient to make such provision out of moneys provided by Parliament as is required for paying such pensions to blind persons who have attained the age of fifty as, under the Old Age Pension Acts, 1908 to 1919, they would be entitled to receive if they had attained the age of seventy, and any expenses incurred by any Government Department and the expenses incurred by the local pension committees up to an amount approved by the Treasury in connection therewith in pursuance of any Act of the present Session to promote the welfare of blind persons."—[Colonel Gibbs.]

Mr. SUGDEN: I wish to appeal to the Treasury that the financial provisions shall include all persons of any age who are so afflicted with blindness. The proposition of the Treasury to make financial provision for the period with which they are concerned is neither sufficient nor does it include all who should receive.

It being Eleven of the Clock, the Chairman left the Chair to make his Report to the House.

Committee report Progress; to sit again upon Monday next.

Orders of the Day — SUPPLY [1ST JUNE] REPORT.

NAVY ESTIMATES, 1920–21.

Resolutions reported,

"1. That a sum, not exceeding £5,209,000, be granted to His Majesty, to defray the Expense of Works, Buildings, and Repairs, at Home and Abroad, including the cost of Superintendence, Purchase of Sites, Grants in Aid, and other Charges connected therewith, which will come in course of payment
764
during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1921.
2. That a sum, not exceeding £3,290,000, be granted to His Majesty, to defray the Expense of various Miscellaneous Effective Services, which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1921.
3. That a sum, not exceeding £2,452,000, be granted to His Majesty, to defray the Expense of Half Pay and Retired Pay, which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1921.
4. That a sum, not exceeding £4,386,900, be granted to His Majesty, to defray the Expense of Naval and Marine Pensions, Gratuities, and Compassionate Allowances, which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1921.
5. That a sum, not exceeding £861,500, be granted to His Majesty, to defray the Expense of Civil Superannuation, Compensation Allowances, and Gratuities, which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1921."

The remaining Orders were read and postponed.

Orders of the Day — RUSSIA.

CRIMEA AND SOUTH RUSSIA.

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That this House do now adjourn."—[Lieut.-Colonel Gilmour.]

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: I desire to raise a matter of which I have given private notice. In the past it has been one of the sources of strength and pride of this country that our plighted word has been kept both in public and a private capacity to "nationals." This quality has been of the greatest service to us in our dealings with foreign countries and our activities all over the world. I am going to accuse the Government of a great breach of that ancient and noble practice. When the remains of General Denikin's army, to the number of 60,000 surrendered, the British Navy assisted in taking a number of troops over from Novorossisk to the Crimea. General Denikin himself was brought over in safety to London and the command was taken over by Baron Wrangel. Of the 60,000 men who surrendered at Novorossisk many have now volunteered to fight against the enemies of Russia who are attacking from Poland and a general amnesty has been given
to all those who obey the laws of the revolutionary Government. The Army of General Wrangel was totally disorganised, and an appeal was made by Lord Curzon, on behalf of the Foreign Office, for mercy for these people, in order, as we were told by the Lord Privy Seal, to avoid unnecessary bloodshed.
More than that, it has been reported and not denied—

Notice taken that Forty Members were not present; House counted, and Forty Members not being present,

The House was adjourned at Eight Minutes after Eleven of the Clock till To-morrow.